According to the evidence admitted by the court below, each of the facts of this case can be fully recognized by the defendant, and as discussed in the judgment below, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, and there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant's right to a prompt trial has been infringed even after examining the records.

In addition, the act of employing a qualified medical person by investing necessary funds in the general public who is not qualified as a medical personnel and making a report on the establishment of a medical institution in the name of the former medical person is deemed to be a lawful medical institution only formally, and thus, a violation of Article 66 subparag. 3 and Article 30(2) of the Medical Service Act is established, and the medical person who is the title holder of the report on the establishment of the medical institution directly engaged in the medical act is not different (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1926, Oct. 26, 1987). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)