The Supreme Court ruled that individuals who receive non-government-issued qualifications as massage therapists, bone setters, or acupuncturists and perform treatment or advertise such services should be punished.
On the 15th, the Supreme Court confirmed a one-year prison sentence with a two-year probation and a fine of 1 million won for Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Special Act on the Control of Health Crimes and the Medical Act.
Mr. A obtained qualifications as a massage therapist, bone setter, and acupuncturist from a private institution in 2021 and operated a body shape management clinic. He consulted on and treated clients' painful areas, charging 150,000 won for the service. He also posted advertisements on the clinic's window with phrases such as 'spinal and pelvic pain, shoulder pain, Dongbang therapy, correct posture correction, body shape correction.'
Consequently, Mr. A was indicted for providing treatment and advertising without being a licensed medical professional. During the trial, Mr. A claimed, "I operated the clinic as a 'medical business operator' after obtaining certification from a qualified education institution designated by an organization under the Ministry of Labor, so I did not violate the law."
However, both the first and second trials found Mr. A guilty of the charges, sentencing him to one year in prison with a two-year probation and a fine of 1 million won. The court stated, "According to the Medical Act, a 'medical business operator' refers to those who received certificates as massage therapists, bone setters, and acupuncturists under the Old National Medical Act before the current Medical Act was enacted in 1962," adding that "Mr. A, who obtained his qualifications afterward, cannot be regarded as a 'medical business operator.'"
The court also noted, "Mr. A's actions of diagnosing clients' pain and applying physical pressure through pulling and pressing go beyond ordinary massage practices and constitute medical acts intended to treat diseases, which can lead to side effects such as worsening symptoms," and that "the advertisement posted on the clinic's window is subject to medical advertising since it is related to Mr. A's treatment activities."
Accordingly, the court concluded, "Mr. A's treatment actions and associated advertisements, which are not conducted by a medical professional or medical business operator, violate the Medical Act and other laws."
Mr. A appealed, but the Supreme Court confirmed that there was no issue with the second trial's judgment and upheld the same sentence.