The sentence against the accused shall be determined by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 3,000,000 won.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 30, 2007, from around March 22, 2019 to around March 22, 2019, the Defendant operated spine c in the name of “C” in the south-gu B, Nam-gu, the Defendant: (a) complained of the head of the engine to the effect that the head of the engine was dried or assembled; (b) laid off the patients suffering from the head of the engine; (c) took charge of the patient’s body body part by hand; and (d) took charge of the blood transfusion using the vice-resistant engine; and (c) received KRW 20,000 at one time in return.

Accordingly, the defendant, who is not a doctor, was engaged in medical practice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (part);

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Copies of each qualification certificate;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of elective Public Health Crimes, Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act (Concurrent Imposition of Imprisonment and Fines)

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant only carried out correction activities with E and F’s license, but did not perform medical practice, and the Defendant did not directly perform the surgery by using fluor.

2. The judgment of medical practice refers to the act of preventing or treating a disease caused by diagnosis, diagnosis, prescription, medication, or surgical surgery with medical expertise based on experience and function, and other acts that may cause harm to public health and hygiene if performed by a medical person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do298, Jan. 15, 2004). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant confirmed the patients visiting the Defendant’s business establishment as the body of the Defendant’s body into the body of the patient, and confirmed the patients as the body of the patient’s body of the patient’s body of the patient’s body of the patient’s body of the patient’s body of the patient’