The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not a massage business establishment, but a sports massage business establishment, and thus, it does not constitute a massage business establishment that can only be established as a massage club, and even if so, the Defendant did not know that the establishment of the instant business was in violation of the Medical Service Act, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the defendant's judgment on the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, the statement by the court below and investigation agency, detection report, field photo, etc., it can be recognized that the defendant has engaged in the so-called sports massage business for the defendant to unfold the land that was laid down or assembled in the ground of the building without being recognized as a massage by the competent authority, with four facilities, such as a room and bed, from the underground space of the building, and with charges from many unspecified customers, and with a charge collected from the unspecified multiple customers. Thus, it is sufficient to view the defendant's act to be included in the scope of "act of physical treatment against the human body by using the massage, math, or stoke, etc., or by using the electric appliances, etc., or by other self-dive methods," as defined in Article 2 of the Rules on Madice. Although the defendant obtained the completion certificate after completing the sports massage course at the tax office, it is not allowed to recognize any massage prohibited by the Medical Service Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2977, Jan. 27, 2004). Meanwhile, even though the Defendant had operated a sports massage business for a long time at the district tax office having jurisdiction over the sports massage site, there has been no particular sanctions.