Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Criminal facts

A person who is not a medical person shall not perform medical practice, and the defendant shall not obtain a medical license.

Nevertheless, from July 1, 2013 to October 1, 2013, the Defendant operated a cosmetic store with the trade name of Sungnam-si C building 813, and “D”, and performed a cosmetic-free practice for many unspecified customers who found the Defendant’s business at the location of the Defendant, and received 10,000 won from 10,000 won to 20,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A certificate;

1. Application of each photograph (workplace, place of practice), business registration certificate, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 87 (1) 2 of the Medical Service Act and Articles 87 (1) and 27 (1) of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of fines;

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

1. Determination on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that Article 27 (1) of the Medical Service Act is unconstitutional in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law and the principle of proportionality, and that the medical practice of the defendant is not contrary to social norms and thus dismissed by Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following: (a) whether Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act is unconstitutional law; (b) the legislative purpose of the Medical Service Act; and (c) various provisions of the Medical Service Act on the mission of a medical person, it is difficult to understand the concept of “medical act” in the former part of Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act (which is not a medical person but a person cannot perform medical act) by a person with a sound general sense.

Inasmuch as it is difficult to see that there is a possibility of multi-level interpretation at the application stage by a judge, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of clarity in the principle of no crime without the law (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2008Hun-Ga19, 2008Hun-Ba108, 2008Hun-Ba108, 209Hun-Ba269, 736, 2009Hun-Ba269, 2010Hun-Ba38, 2010Hun-Ma275, combined).