Promulgation of the medical practice rule without specific definition in Medical Law has brought about many constitutional issues. The major issue is that the law has the government punish unlicensed medical practice without defining what it is. Instead, the law chooses a license-centered structure of criminal punishment for medical malpractice, saying "no one can practice medicine without the government-approved license." This regulation violates the rule of "void for vagueness" based on the principle of "nulla poena nullum crimen sine lege." Judicial interpretation should be required for a citizen to understand the Medical Law provision intuitively. In addition, the law infringes upon the freedom of occupation of the unlicensed and the licensed who wish to extend his or her practice area for "holistic medicine." The central issue of the law is that it was established under no ground of professionalism even though medical practice has been understood professional. The government has centrally controlled the medical field for its needs. Lastly, the current law violates the right of medical selection of the consumers of medicine. Because patients have the right of health and life, they have to hold the latitude of selection for medical treatments. Especially, they should have an opportunity for considering the Complementary and Alternative Medicine if they want. But under the current rules, this medicine is not permitted. To correct those problems, a new provision for the definition of medical practice should be adopted at once.