A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A (an unjust form) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts did not neglect due care and supervision. As such, the proviso of Article 32 of the Act on the Violation of Medical Technicians, etc. should be applied. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to determine whether a corporation or an individual has fulfilled the duty of care supervision under the proviso of Article 32 of the Medical Technicians Act, etc. Act, the purport of the joint penal provisions, the quantity of the offense, the size of the corporation’s business, the possibility of supervision over the offender, the specific direction and supervision relationship, and the measures taken to prevent the offense shall be comprehensively considered.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7834 Decided September 9, 2010). In full view of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following, the following: (a) the Defendant’s scambling unit; (b) the size of the D’s members operated by the Defendant; and (c) Defendant B and Defendant A, both of which are the doctor and employees of a hospital, are deemed to have been more closely related than in the general workplace; and (b) the husband and wife could have been in a more close relationship than in the general workplace, the mere

Defendant

B’s assertions in this part are rejected.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the Defendants after the judgment of the court below on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing.

In light of the background of the crime, the purport of the medical engineer system, the necessity of strict punishment for the crime of forging public documents, the criminal records of the Defendants, etc., and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable.

We cannot accept this part of the Defendants’ assertion.

3. Conclusion is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.