The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the so-called IMO surgery is a medical practice treating a human body suffering from a fife disease, and thus constitutes a single-bife treatment act, and is not a domestic service.

Even if the defendant did not do so, he did not do so but do so, so the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. According to the records, Ims is a pain treatment procedure developed by J, a U.S. medical person, and is a therapy to treat pain by directly sticking to a scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the scam on the basis of modern medicine.

Whether a wrong medical practice constitutes a medical practice belonging to modern medicine or an oriental medical practice should be determined in academic and institutional context. As above, insofar as it is not yet academic and institutionally confirmed as to the nature of IMO surgery, it cannot be readily concluded as an oriental medical practice.

In addition, the statement at F’s investigative agency and court below, which correspond to the fact that the Defendant’s one-way treatment is not IMO treatment but her Han medical act, is difficult to believe in light of the recording of the medical record and each statement at H, the nurse, and G, etc. where the Defendant had the same treatment from the Defendant, and otherwise, the Defendant is not her mms treatment but the single medical act.