beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and four months, fine of five million won and one year and one year and one year.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the acts of door practice conducted by the defendants are medical acts that are likely to cause harm to health and sanitation if performed by medical personnel.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby rendering a judgment of innocence to the Defendants on the entire facts charged.
2. Determination 1) Medical practice of this case constitutes a medical practice of this case refers to all acts closely related to human life, body, or general public health, which are related to treatment and prevention of diseases, and which are likely to cause harm to public health unless there is a medical person with medical skills and knowledge (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do673, Apr. 27, 2004; 2003Do2903, Sept. 5, 2003). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be recognized that the act of this case executed by the defendants of this case was installed in a machine so that they can lead to high speed learning, and that it was done in such a way as to influencing the skin and influencing the skin by inserting it into a fluencing sium.
Thus, the act of this case is likely to cause side effects, such as blood transfusion and spawn infection, so it constitutes a medical act that is likely to cause harm to health unless performed by medical personnel.
2) “The purpose of profit-making” under Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes as to whether Defendant B’s profit-making purpose is recognized, refers to the purpose of obtaining wide economic benefits, and does not ask for the form of such profit and the large amount of the profit (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2903, Sept. 5, 2003). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, namely, (a) Defendant B performed the act of literacy at the workplace of the place of business where Defendant A operated.