Defendant

Prosecutor

Long-term (prosecutions) and grandchildren (public trials)

Attorney Lee Gi-ia

Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Gohap47 Decided April 9, 2015

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

The defendant's business of this case constitutes beauty business to which the Public Health Control Act applies, and constitutes beauty business to which the public health control Act applies, and also constitutes beauty business in which customers manage the skin by directly using a medical device. Thus, the defendant has a duty to report the business in accordance with the Public Health Control Act. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case against the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

2. The facts charged in this case

The Defendant is the representative of the “○○○○○○○○△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△§ 25, February 25, 2014, and the Defendant did not file a business report with the competent authority, while running a beauty business managing the skin by using

3. Determination

Article 20(1)1 of the Public Health Control Act and the former part of Article 3(1)1 of the same Act punish a person who does not report to the competent authorities when intending to engage in a public health business. Article 2(1)1 of the same Act provides beauty business as one type of a public health business. Article 2(1)5 of the same Act provides that beauty business is the business of cultivating the appearance of customers by taking care of the customer’s face, hair, skin, etc. In addition, Article 2(2) of the same Act provides that the above beauty business may be subdivided by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the beauty business related to the skin may be subdivided into beauty business and beauty business, and Article 4(2) of the same Act provides that “the business of analyzing the state of skin who does not use medical appliances or medicines, skin control, hair, eyebrow, etc.” In full view of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, only the business that does not use medical appliances or medicines constitutes beauty business under the Public Health Control Act.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant reported the sales and lease business of medical devices, and operated the “○○○○○ △△△△△△△△△△△△” (hereinafter “instant workplace”). The Defendant provided the instant medical device at the instant workplace, which is equipped with “ △△ 53”, “○○ △△△”, “△△△”, “△△△△”, etc., so that customers can use the said medical device by selling membership rights to customers. “Personal light-ray fraud” falls under the medical device with the skin management function. The Defendant’s assertion that the customers using the instant △△△△△△△△△△△△△△○ constitutes a medical device with the skin management function. In light of the foregoing, it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s face-to-face management obligation on the face of the instant workplace, or it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s direct use of the medical device and its face-to-face management.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Judge)