The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B It is a doctor who operates the F outside of the Republic of Korea in Busan Northern-gu E, and the defendant A works as an assistant nurse from the above member.

No person other than a medical person shall perform medical practice.

Nevertheless, at around 16:00 on April 28, 2014, Defendant B conspired with the above FF department, and ordered A, a member’s assistant nurse, to perform the removal of bucks and spucks to G, and the Defendant A performed a non-licensed medical practice by removing spucks of G’s spucks and sprinkines on the part of the spumpus and spucks by using the 532nm pulter.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial record

1. The legal statement of the witness H in part;

1. Requests for appraisal by the Korean Medical Association;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel's assertion of investigation report (Attachment of Medical Treatment)

1. The defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion asserts that the removal procedure using 532nm pulpullate (hereinafter "the apparatus of this case") as stated in the facts of crime does not constitute medical practice, and also constitutes the scope of assistant nurse's work where treatment assistance can be provided even if it falls under medical practice.

2. Determination

(a) The term "medical practice" means the act of preventing or treating diseases caused by the conduct of medical treatment, autopsy, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment as a result of experience and function based on medical expertise, and other act which might cause harm to public health and sanitation if performed by medical personnel;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3405 delivered on October 28, 2004). Here, “the possibility of causing harm to public health and hygiene if a medical person is not performed by a medical person” is sufficient to meet abstract risk, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no harm to public health and hygiene on the ground that there is no specific danger to a patient.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5964, Oct. 10, 2012).