A. According to the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal C, B, and I’s statement, etc., Defendant A, while taking overall charge of the diagnosis of Madomamamamba, could fully recognize the facts of the conspiracy with B as to the execution of the examination of Madomamba in the instant case without a doctor’s supervision. However, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of Defendant A on the ground that it is impossible to believe the statements made by C, B, etc., and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending such

B. Defendant B and C’s grounds of appeal are 1) Defendant B’s inspection conducted under the control and supervision of the doctor A, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the Medical Service Act. In addition, as Defendant B appeared and testified as a witness in this case, the prosecutor also submitted as evidence to the court below each protocol of examination of the prosecutor’s examination (section 190 to No. 214 of the trial record) that investigated the above Defendant as a charge of perjury and then followed the Defendant’s testimony in the court as evidence. Since the investigation by the prosecutor is contrary to due process, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts adopted as evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even if Defendant C’s non-licensed medical practice for Defendant C’s household affairs is recognized, the court below erred by misapprehending the above facts and misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. The summary of the facts charged against Defendant A is a doctor in charge of the general health examination center of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Hospital, and B is a nurse of the above general health examination center.