Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and fines for five million won and suspension of qualifications for two years, and Defendant B.

A. Defendant A (A) 1) The facts constituting the crime of fraud and aiding and abetting fraud in the judgment of the court below

(a).

(B) As to the establishment and operation of the instant F Medical Service Act (Article 1-3(3) of the first instance judgment), Defendant A did not provide false medical treatment to the patients, and therefore, it is different from the facts charged that directly received insurance money, etc. from an insurance company based on false medical treatment, or facilitates the receipt of insurance money, etc. from the patients.

It is not true that G and Defendant A jointly established and operated the above F Institute, but the F Institute was established and operated by Defendant A, who is a doctor.

C) As to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers) (Article 2 of the crime of violation in the judgment of the court below), Defendant A was directly collected in the course of performing and assisting each sex surgery of this case, and Defendant B was only 3 to 4 times a month average, but also 3 times a month average. 2) As to the crime of fraud and fraud (Article 1 of the crime of violation in the judgment of the court below) (Article 1 of the crime of this case)

(a).

(B) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of violating the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers) on the charge of the crime of violating the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Article 2(2) of this part of the facts charged in the first instance judgment), provided that, insofar as some of the principals of the aiding and abetting fraud are dissatisfied with the intent to deny the charge on the ground that they had been receiving medical treatment for having been practically friendly, and there has not yet been a final and conclusive judgment thereon, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of each fraud of the Defendant A, which is premised on the fraud of the principal offender, and one year thereafter.