logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.07.04 2013노86 (1)
의료법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is a person qualified as a national technical qualification witness, and only the defendant engaged in secondary management activities, such as factoring in E face in order to preserve, protect, improve, and manage the skin of E, and there is no sufficient evidence to take charge of factoring in E’s face, and such secondary management activities constitute beauty and beauty business under Article 2(1)5 of the Public Health Act. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment (fine 2 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from around December 20, 201 to around December 21, 201, operated a marina business with the trade name “D” in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul from around December 20, 201 to around December 21 of the same month, performed an act of promoting the circulation of blood by using hand against many unspecified customers including E, such as promoting the circulation of blood and releasing the flading singinged meat, and received 60,000 won from customers in return.

Accordingly, the defendant did not obtain the recognition of the Marine's qualification, and was Marine for profit.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the act was included in the scope of massage under the Medical Service Act, on the grounds that the act was included in the scope of massage under the aforementioned Act.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below, consistent with the facts charged of this case, shows the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant who led to the crime of this case as an adopted evidence, but is recorded in the list of evidence.

arrow