Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three years and suspension of qualifications for each of two years.

121 days of detention before a judgment of the court below is rendered shall be included in the above imprisonment.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

5/6 of the costs of the trial before and after the remand shall be borne by the defendant.

A. Defendant

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(A) The homicide of the judgment below

Although the Defendant performed a induced delivery method to Nonindicted 1, the fetus was discharged without the death of the skin, and the above fetus was extremely low in the likelihood of survival as a pregnant 26-28 baby, and only injected the above fetus with chlolium, but did not have any intent to commit murder, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant injected the above fetus with chlolium as its intent to murder.

(B) Violation of the Medical Service Act in the judgment of the court below

Although there was a fact that the defendant provided medical consultation in the course of operating the Internet homepage, he provided consultation free of charge to help patients and did not aim at profit-making, and further, that the (name omitted) masse and the (name omitted) masse and the (name omitted) masse who operated by the defendant was known through consultation was a result of a counter-gravated consultation, and there was no incentive to induce abortion or to enter the hospital, the court below acknowledged that the defendant induced patients for profit-making purposes

(C) The fact of the occupational abortion in the decision of the court below

In the judgment of the court below, Nonindicted 2’s fetus No. 2 stated in the annexed Table 2 of the crime sight list No. 2 was likely to be sentenced to punishment, and Nonindicted 3’s fetus stated in the annexed Table No. 22 of the same Table obtained the consent of his guardian in the internal organ form, and Nonindicted 4’s fetus stated in the annexed Table No. 49 of the same Table obtained the consent of his guardian in congenital long-term form. Thus, each of the above abortion constitutes a case permitted under the Mother and Child Health Act, and thus, it is not a crime of occupational abortion. However, the court below

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence of the original judgment rendered by the defendant is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence of the judgment of the court below rendered by the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) The homicide of the judgment below

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant, a pregnant woman and the medical doctor, performed abortion treatment with respect to the non-indicted 1, who is pregnant 28 weeks by means of medication. However, it is recognized that the fetus was born while living in the state of the baby and caused the baby to die by injecting the chlorate. The crime of abortion is established by artificially discharging the fetus out of the mother body before the natural part of the baby or killing the baby within the mother body, and whether the fetus died or not does not affect the establishment of the crime of abortion. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act of injecting the chlorate into the baby born and born by the baby is merely an act to complete abortion. Even if the possibility of normal survival of the baby born by the defendant is low, the defendant's intention to kill the baby is to actively injecting the baby without confirmation of its condition or minimum medical practice.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the defendant committed murder is just, and there is no reason to discuss the above appeal by the defendant.

(2) The attitude of occupational abortion as indicated in the judgment below

Article 14 (1) 5 of the Mother and Child Health Act, one of the cases where an artificial abortion operation is permitted, refers to the case where the maintenance of a pregnant woman seriously injures, or is likely to injure, the health of the pregnant woman for health or medical reasons" means the case where the maintenance of pregnancy is caused by serious danger to the life and health of the pregnant woman and it is deemed inevitable to undergo an artificial abortion operation to save the life and health of the pregnant woman even (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1958, Jun. 11, 1985).

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, even if the medical records of abortion treatment for non-indicted 2 as stated in No. 2 of the List of Crimes attached to the judgment below, include the fact that the fetus is stated "Anomaly" for the fetus (in 429 pages), the fact that the medical records of abortion treatment for non-indicted 3 as stated in No. 22 of the same Table stated "bowel for the fetus" for the fetus (in 604 pages), and the fact that the medical records of abortion treatment for non-indicted 4 as stated in No. 49 of the same Table stated "C.HD" for the fetus (in 581 pages of the investigation record), it is difficult to view that each fetus is a fetus as alleged by the above defendant as having any reason under Article 14 (1) 5 of the Mother and Child Health Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges is justified and without merit.

(3) Violation of the Medical Service Act in the judgment below

(A) Summary of the facts charged

On June 6, 2001, at around 19:32, the defendant sent an answer to the women of the defect in pregnancy of five months of pregnancy through consultation on the bulletin board of the Internet homepage (name omitted), including the name of the university of origin, the name of the university of overseas training, and the name, location, and telephone number of the university of the defendant, and (name omitted) the name of the hospital of the child of the child of the defendant, and the name, location, and telephone number of the patient of the child of the defendant, as shown in the attached list of crimes (name omitted) from April 2, 1999 to June 18, 2001, the defendant induced the female to be placed as the members of the woman of the child of the defendant's operation, and gave an interview to the non-indicted 5 (name of the crime of the first 333 public prosecutions filed at the beginning, but the name of the crime was withdrawn at the trial after remand) about 28 times.

(B) Summary of the lower judgment and the Defendant’s lawsuit

The lower court consistently denied this part of the facts charged, which was found guilty of this part of the facts charged, and consistently denied this part of the facts charged, where the Defendant provided medical consultation free of charge on the Internet homepage, not for profit-making purposes, and there was no solicitation for abortion or inducement to enter the hospital.

(C) Judgment of the court below

1) The violation of each of the Medical Service Act stated in Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16 through 22, and 24 of the annexed list of crimes (1)

Article 25 (3) of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6686, Mar. 30, 200; hereinafter the same) refers to the act of inducing a patient to enter into a contract for medical treatment with a specific medical institution or a specific medical person by deceiving or treating the patient. Thus, the act of inducing a patient by a medical person or a founder of a medical institution also constitutes inducement under Article 25 (3) of the same Act in cases where there are special circumstances, such as the provision of money or goods to a patient or an actor or fundamental harm to the order of the medical market (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5724, Oct. 27, 2004). In light of the purpose of the enactment of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6686, Oct. 30, 200; hereinafter the same), the term “inspiring a patient to enter into a contract for medical treatment with a specific medical institution or a specific medical person.

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged: in the case of the following items: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16 through 24 Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 16, 22, and 24 of the annexed crime sight table (1) Nos. 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 16 through 24, the defendant can promptly encourage the defendant to visit the defendant's hospital, and the defendant's act of providing the defendant's medical information and soliciting the defendant to provide the defendant's hospital with medical advice and consultation for abortion rather than providing the above medical information.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that recognized that the defendant induceds a patient for the purpose of profit-making as to the violation of each Medical Service Act as stated in Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16 through 22, and 24 of the annexed list of crimes (1) is just, and there is no reason for the defendant to appeal this part.

2) Violation of each Medical Service Act described in Nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 23, 25, and 28 of the annexed Table of Crimes (1)

According to the above evidence in each of the above cases, it is recognized that the defendant provided medical counseling using the counseling bulletin board on his own (title omitted) and the Internet homepage and provided the defendant with the defendant's career and hospital location, name, telephone number, etc. on the screen. Furthermore, if the counseling contents are examined in detail, it is difficult to find that the defendant provided counseling on abortion surgery (net No. 2), counseling on after abortion surgery (net No. 6, 11, 23, and 25) and counseling on whether pregnancy or pregnancy is possible after abortion surgery (net No. 8, 9, 14, 26, 27, and 28), and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant provided medical information and counseling on legitimate medical practice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant provided medical care to the patient as an illegal inducement.

Therefore, each violation of the Medical Service Act stated in the annexed list (1) Nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 23, 25, and 28 shall be pronounced not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of each crime. However, the court below's finding guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous or misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendant's appeal on this part is justified. However, since the court below imposed a single punishment on the whole facts charged against the defendant as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it cannot be maintained further.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without any need to determine the judgment of the court below, and it is again decided as follows.

(a) The point of murder: Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor);

B. The purpose of inducing patients for profit listed in the annexed list of crimes (1) Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16 through 22, and 24 of the annexed list of crimes (1): Article 67 and Article 25 (3) of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 6686 of Mar. 30, 202) (or choice of imprisonment) comprehensively

(c) The neglect of occupational commission: Article 270(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Concurrent imposition of suspension of qualifications;

Article 270(4) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment and Suspension of Qualification)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 55(5) of the Criminal Act

1. The inclusion of the number of detention days before sentence

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Bearing litigation costs;

Article 191(1) and the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

However, the Defendant appears to have contributed to the development of medical science due to the study of crym problems while working as a professor of medical college for a period of 20 years prior to commencing the instant father’s and assemblyman’s work. If this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant would be subject to administrative sanctions under the Medical Service Act, such as cancellation of a doctor’s license or suspension of qualification, etc. for a considerable period of time in the future, and his mistake is pened and reflected in depth, and other circumstances, such as the motive and background of the offense indicated in the record, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, etc., are taken into account, and the Defendant’s sentence is imposed the same as the disposition.

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Ko Young-han (Presiding Judge)