[1] The meaning of "all kinds of veterinary acts" under Article 2 of the Rules on Marine who provides for the limit of services to the Marine's associations

[2] The case affirming the court below's decision that the act of massping in a removal facility constitutes an unqualified horse business under the Medical Service Act

[1] Article 61 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who intends to be a inseminator shall obtain recognition of his/her qualification from the Mayor/Do Governor (paragraph (1)); that person may engage in massage business, notwithstanding Article 25 (2) and that person shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (paragraph (4)). Article 67 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who conducts massage for profit without obtaining recognition of his/her qualification under Article 61(1) shall be punished; Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Rules on Mammy under Article 61(4) of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who conducts physical therapy to his/her human body by using the said Act, such as massage, marina, or pressure, or by using the said Act, shall be allowed to use the said Rules as his/her duties, and Article 3 of the said Rules provides that a person who causes another person to suffer recognition of his/her qualification to have his/her body transferred to the public or by using the said Act shall be allowed to have his/her body recovered from the public, etc.

[2] The case affirming the court below's decision that the act of massage in a removal suit constitutes an unqualified horse business under the Medical Service Act

[1] Articles 61(1), 61(2), 61(4), and 67 of the Medical Service Act; Articles 2 and 3 of the Rules on Marinium / [2] Articles 61(1) and 67 of the Medical Service Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2001No7837 delivered on November 21, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 61 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who intends to be a inseminator shall obtain the recognition of his/her qualification from the Mayor/Do Governor ( Paragraph (1)); that person may engage in massage business, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 25 ( Paragraph (2)); that person’s recognition of qualification and limit of his/her duties, etc. shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare ( Paragraph (4). Article 67 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who performs massage for profit without obtaining the recognition of his/her qualification under Article 61(1) shall be punished for committing such act; Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Rules on Madow under Article 61(4) of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who performs physical therapy to his/her human body by taking advantage of all kinds of methods such as massage, marina, dyke pressure, etc., or by using electric appliances, etc. Article 3 of the said Rules shall be limited to a person who has no capacity to obtain the recognition of qualification for Madern’s blood hair, etc., or by taking it into account the name and mass of his/her body.

Examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance by the court below in light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below's determination that the defendant's act constitutes a case where the defendant performed an act of massage for profit as provided in Article 67 of the Medical Service Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

On the other hand, the term "obscenity act" under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals refers to an act that stimulates, plays or satisfies a sexual desire, and which damages the general public's normal sense of sexual humiliation and goes against the good sexual morality. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of committing a crime that the defendant provided a obscene act at an immigration establishment is just, and there is no error of misconception of the facts against the rules of evidence as alleged.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)