All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, medical practice means the act of preventing or treating a disease caused by diagnosis, autopsy, prescription, medication, or surgical treatment based on medical expertise, and other act that may cause harm to health and hygiene unless performed by a medical personnel (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3405, Oct. 28, 2004). Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (hereinafter “the Act on the Control of Public Health Crimes”) provides that “for profit-making purposes” means the act of widely obtaining economic benefits and does not necessarily require that a person without a license should be identical to the person to whom economic benefits accrue or the person responsible for management (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do2481, Mar. 26, 199).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable on the basis of the foregoing legal doctrine. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation and the “for-profit purposes” under Article 5 of the Health Crimes Control Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. The third ground of appeal.