Defendant 2, 5, 6, 7, 20, 15, 19, 10, and 16 did not pay the above fine, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

However, with respect to defendants 8, 12, 18, 22, 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, and 23, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 8, 12, 18, and 22 shall each order 180 hours, 11, 13, 14, 17, 21, and 23 to provide community service for 135 hours.

Defendant 2, 5, 6, 7, 20, 15, 19, 10, and 16 respectively are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Defendant 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23 of the facts charged against Defendant 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23

The summary of the judgment against the defendant 24 shall be announced publicly.

1. Regarding the establishment of an office hospital using the name of Nonindicted 8 Medical Life Cooperatives (hereinafter “Medical Life Cooperatives”) (hereinafter “Medical Life Cooperatives”)

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 8’s medical life consultation

Defendant 1 (Defendant 1 of the judgment of the court of appeal) established a Non-Indicted 8 Medical Life Collaboration with the main office in Ycheon-si ( Address 41 omitted) in order to establish a medical institution on or around December 1, 2005, and was registered as the president of the above medical life consultation from that time to that time.

B. Establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 8 Medical Life Cooperatives Branch

(1) Defendants 1 and 3 (Defendant 3 of the judgment of the court of appeal) related to the establishment of a son.

Around May 7, 2007, Defendant 3 agreed to establish a staff member of a medical institution by lending the name of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 8’s medical life consultation in the form of the branch in order to establish a staff member of a medical care center in the Cheongju-si ( Address 1 omitted). Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution, who is not a doctor, etc.

Around May 28, 2007, Defendant 3, upon the above public invitation, employed a doctor, nurse, physical clinic, etc., and provided a physical treatment room, etc., and reported the establishment of a medical institution under the name of Cheongju-si with the name of Cheongju-si who lent the name of Non-Indicted 8 medical consultation, and then “commencing Council” to Cheongju-si. At that time, Defendant 3 paid KRW 10 million to Defendant 1 as the security deposit for the name lending, and paid the name lending fee of KRW 1.5 million each month.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

(2) Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 (Defendant 4 of the judgment of appeal judgment) related to the establishment of the ▽▽▽▽▽△△△ members shall be subject to a public conspiracy.

Around October 22, 2007, Defendant 4 loaned the name of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 8 medical students in the name of a branch office in order to establish the ▽▽▽▽▽△△△ Council in order to establish a member of the said ▽▽▽△△ Council. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor, etc.

Defendant 4, on November 16, 2007, on the first floor of the building located in Chungcheongnam-si ( Address 2 omitted), followed by the above public offering, employed a doctor, nurse, physical clinic, etc., and provided a clinic, a hospital, a hospital (11 beds), and a water treatment room, etc., and then lent the name of Nonindicted 8’s medical life consultation, and reported the opening of the medical institution to the competent viewing by using the name of Nonindicted 8’s medical life consultation.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

(3) Defendants 1 and 2 (Defendant 2 of the judgment of the court of appeal) related to the establishment of knives and dental clinics

Defendant 2: (a) around August 3, 2010, in the name of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 8 medical life consultation in order to establish knives, dental clinics; and (b) agreed to establish knives, dental clinics in the form of its branch office. Accordingly, the Defendants, rather than a doctor, etc., conspired to establish a medical institution.

Defendant 2: (a) around August 3, 2010, according to the above conspiracy, employed a doctor, a nurse, etc., and provided a medical room, etc.; and (b) lent the name of Nonindicted 8’s medical students consultation to the Gyang-gun Office with the name of “balconium” and reported the establishment of a medical institution with the name of “balconium.”

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

C. Defendant 6 (Defendant 6 of the judgment of the court of appeal) and Defendant 5 (Defendant 5 of the judgment of the court of appeal) who committed a crime of evading compulsory execution using the name of Nonindicted 8 Medical Cooperation and Regional Health and Medical Assistance Assistance.

(1) The Defendants’ relationship and the circumstances leading up to the lending of the name of medical consultation

피고인 6은 의사로서 2005. 2.경부터 2007. 8.경까지 충북 (주소 3 생략)에서 ‘▩▩▩의원’을 운영하여 오던 중, 2005. 8.경 전 처인 공소외 40으로부터 이혼 및 위자료청구의 반소를 제기 당하자 그에 따른 강제집행으로 ‘▩▩▩의원’의 운영에 지장을 받을 것을 우려하여 2007. 11.경 피고인 1로부터 공소외 8 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 그 분사무소 형태로 ‘▷▷의원’을 개설하여 2008. 7.경까지 운영하여 왔다.

나아가, 피고인 6은 2008. 8.경 '▷▷의원'의 원무과장으로 근무하던 피고인 5로 하여금 지역보건의료생협을 설립하게 하여 2008. 8.경부터 2008. 10.경까지 지역보건의료생협의 명의를 빌려 '▷▷의원'을 운영하다가, 위 의료생협의 ♨♨분사무소를 설치하여 2008. 11.경부터 현재까지 강원도 평창군 (주소 4 생략)에서 '☏☏의원'을 운영하고 있는 사람이다.

피고인 5는 위와 같이 ‘▷▷의원’에서 원무과장으로 근무하며, 지역보건의료생협의 이사장으로 등재된 사람이다.

(2) Formation of public offering relations

On October 12, 2006, in relation to the counterclaim of the above divorce and the claim for solatium, the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment that “Defendant 6 shall pay consolation money of KRW 60 million to Nonindicted 40, and child support of KRW 12 million to Nonindicted 40,” and Nonindicted 40 tried to seize Defendant 6’s benefit claim against the regional healthcare cooperation by using the above judgment as the title of execution. The Defendants pretended that Defendant 6 assumed the false debt to Defendant 39, who is the wife of Defendant 5, and conspired to evade compulsory execution by means of receiving the attachment and assignment order first of all, with the title of execution.

(3) A conspiracy to evade compulsory execution

피고인들은 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2007. 11. 13. 제천시 (주소 5 생략) ♧♧♧♧법률사무소에서 “피고인 6은 2007. 8. 31.경 공소외 39로부터 165,800,000원을 차용하였고 그 원금 및 이자를 2007. 11. 16.경까지 변제하기로 한다”는 취지의 허위 공정증서를 작성한 다음, 2008. 8. 19. 청주지방법원 제천지원에 위 공정증서를 집행권원으로 하여 위 급여채권에 대한 채권압류 및 전부명령을 받았다.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion with the obligee to have Defendant 6 bear false debt for the purpose of evading the compulsory execution by Nonindicted 40.

2. Concerning the establishment of an office-general hospital using the name of Nonindicted 14 Medical Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 14 Medical Organisms Consultation

Defendant 3, a person who is not a doctor, etc. on February 26, 2008, was not a doctor, etc., and was established at the Cheongju-si, the main office of which is located in the Cheongju-si, and registered as the president of the Cheongju-si, and was registered as the president of the Cheongju-si, the main office of Non-Party 14 on July 8, 2008. On the other hand, the principal office of Non-Party 14 was changed to the Cheongju-si ( Address 7 omitted) around July 8, 2008. Around January 20, 2010, the main office of Non-Party 14 was changed to the Cheongju-si ( Address 6 omitted), and was changed to the Cheongju-si ( Address 8 omitted) around June 23, 2010. < Amended by Act No. 10388, Sep. 8, 2011>

B. Establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of the main office of Nonindicted 14 Medical Life Cooperatives

(1) Defendant 3’s sole criminal conduct related to the establishment of the △△△△△ Hospital

On August 7, 2008, the Defendant employed a doctor, nurse, physical clinic, etc., provided a clinic, hospitalized room (five beds), and a physical treatment room, etc. at the Cheongju-si ( Address 7 omitted), and made a report on the establishment of a medical institution to the Cheongju-si, using the name of Non-Indicted 14 medical students’ consultation, using the name of “Manju-si” in the Cheongju-si.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

(2) ♤♤♤♤♤♤의원 개설 관련 피고인 3의 단독범행

피고인은 2011. 9. 27.경 청주시 흥덕구 (주소 9 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 입원실(29병상), 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 14 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 청주시청에 ‘♤♤♤♤♤♤의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

C. Establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 14 Medical Life Cooperatives Branch

(1) Defendant 3’s sole criminal conduct related to the establishment of △△won

On February 8, 2010, the Defendant employed a doctor, a nurse, a physical clinic, etc., and provided a medical treatment room, a physical treatment room, etc., at the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 10 omitted) and made a report on the establishment of a medical institution with the name of “△△△△△△△” in the Cheongju-si Special Metropolitan City ( Address 10 omitted) using the name of Nonindicted 14 medical students, and used the name of “

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

(2) ◐◐의원 개설 관련 피고인 3의 단독범행

피고인은 2010. 8. 31.경 청주시 (주소 1 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 14 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 청주시청에 ‘◐◐의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

D. Defendant 1’s aiding and abetting the establishment of the above medical institution

On February 2, 2008, the Defendant provided a file format, such as articles of incorporation and inaugural general meeting, and provided advice on the establishment procedure, with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant 3 established a medical institution in order to establish a medical institution.

Accordingly, the Defendant 3 aided and abetted Defendant 3’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

3. As to the establishment of an office hospital affiliated with Nonindicted 6 Medical Life Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 6’s medical life consultation

Defendant 9 (Defendant 8 of the judgment of the court of appeal) established a non-indicted 6’s medical cooperative with its principal office in Jeonju-si ( Address 11 omitted) to establish a medical institution on July 10, 2008, and was registered as the president of the above medical consultation from that time to that time. Meanwhile, the principal office of the non-indicted 6’s medical consultation was changed from June 13, 2009 to that of Jeonju-si ( Address 12 omitted).

B. Establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of the main office of Nonindicted 6 Medical Life Cooperatives

(1) ◈◈◈◈◈의원 개설 관련 피고인 9의 단독범행

피고인은 2008. 7. 29.경 전주시 (주소 11 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 입원실(29병상), 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 6 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 전주시청에 ‘◈◈◈◈◈의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

(2) ▦▦▦▦▦의원 개설 관련 피고인 9의 단독범행

피고인은 2009. 6. 13.경 전주시 (주소 12 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 입원실(29병상), 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 6 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 전주시청에 ‘▦▦▦▦▦의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

C. Defendant 9 and 13 (Defendant 12 of the judgment of the court of appeal) related to the establishment of a office-affiliated hospital in the form of Nonindicted 6 medical life cooperative branch

around March 31, 2011, Defendant 13 agreed to establish a △△△△△△△△△△ in the name of Defendant 9 and Nonindicted 6 medical students consultation in order to establish a “△△△△△△△△△△” in the former Nonindicted Chang-gun ( Address 13 omitted). Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor, etc.

Defendant 13, following the above public invitation around March 31, 201, employed a doctor, a nurse, a physical clinic, etc., and provided a physical treatment room, a water treatment room, etc. in the Jeon Chang-gun ( Address 13 omitted), and reported the establishment of a medical institution with the name of “△△△△△△” in the name of Nonindicted 6 medical students consultation, using the name of Nonindicted 6 medical students consultation, and paid KRW 150,00 per month to Defendant 9 on the name of the name of the name.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

D. Defendant 1’s aiding and abetting the establishment of the above medical institution

On July 2008, the Defendant provided a file format, such as articles of incorporation, inaugural general meeting, etc., and provided advice on the establishment procedure, despite being aware of the fact that Defendant 9 established a medical institution in order to establish a medical institution.

Accordingly, the above Defendant 9 aided and abetted the above Defendant 9’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

4. Matters regarding the establishment of an office-general hospital using the name of Nonindicted 16 Medical Cooperation

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 16 Medical Life Consultation

Defendant 22 (Defendant 21 of the judgment of the appellate court) established Nonindicted 16 Medical Life Collaboration, the principal office of which is located in Yecheon-gu ( Address 14 omitted) in order to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor, etc. around July 24, 2008, and was registered as the president of the above medical life consultation from that time to that time.

B. Defendant 22’s sole criminal conduct in relation to the establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 16 Medical Organisms’ principal office

피고인은 2008. 10. 17.경 부천시 오정구 (주소 14 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 입원실(29병상), 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 16 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 부천시청에 ‘☎☎☎☎의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

C. Defendant 1’s aiding and abetting the establishment of the above medical institution

The Defendant provided a file format, such as articles of incorporation and inaugural general meeting, and provided advice on the establishment procedure, and examined the final text of the application document, with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant 22 was to establish a medical institution in order to establish a medical institution at a place where it is unknown from March 2008 to July 2008.

Accordingly, the above Defendant 22 aided and abetted the above Defendant 22’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

5. As to the establishment of an office hospital affiliated with Nonindicted 17 Medical Research Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 17 Medical Life Consultation

Defendant 4, who was not a doctor, etc. on August 11, 2008, established Nonindicted 17 Medical Life Cooperatives at the Chungcheong City ( Address 2 omitted) with its principal office in order to establish a medical institution, and was registered as the president of the above Medical Life Consultative Council from that time to that time.

B. Defendant 4’s sole criminal conduct in relation to the establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 17 Medical Life Cooperatives’ principal office

Around September 1, 2008, the Defendant, on the first floor of the building located in Chungcheong-si ( Address 2 omitted), employed a doctor, nurse, physical clinic, etc., equipped with a clinic, a hospital (11 sickbeds), a hospital, and a water clinic, etc., and provided a report on the establishment of a medical institution to the Chungcheong viewing using the name of Nonindicted Party 17’s medical life consultation.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

C. Establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 17 Medical Life Cooperatives Branch

(1) ♡♡의원 개설 관련 피고인 4, 8(항소심판결의 피고인 7)의 공모범행

피고인 8은 2008. 8. 27.경 충북 (주소 15 생략)에서 ♡♡의원을 개설하기 위하여 피고인 4와 공소외 17 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 ♡♡의원을 개설하기로 합의하였다. 이로써 피고인들은 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기로 공모하였다.

피고인 8은 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2008. 8. 27.경 충북 (주소 15 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 17 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 음성군청에 ‘♡♡의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

(2) ☜☜☜☜☜의원 개설 관련 피고인 4, 7의 공모범행

피고인 7은 2009. 9. 10.경 충북 (주소 16 생략)에서 ☜☜☜☜☜의원을 개설하기 위하여 피고인 4와 공소외 17 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 그 분사무소 형태로 ☜☜☜☜☜의원을 개설하기로 합의하였다. 이로써 피고인들은 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기로 공모하였다.

피고인 7은 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2009. 9. 10.경 충북 (주소 16 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 17 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 음성군청에 ‘☜☜☜☜☜의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다. 피고인 7은 피고인 4에게 명의대여료 명목으로 매월 입금되는 요양급여액의 10%에 달하는 금원(150만 원~200만 원)을 지급하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

D. Defendant 1’s aiding and abetting the establishment of the above medical institution

On February 2, 2008, the Defendant provided a file format, such as articles of incorporation and inaugural general meeting, and provided advice on the establishment procedure, with knowledge of the fact that the above Defendant 4 established a medical institution in order to establish a medical institution.

Accordingly, the above Defendant 4 aided and abetted the above Defendant 4’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

6. As to the establishment of an office hall for Nonindicted 3’s Medical Life Cooperatives affiliated therewith

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 3’s medical consultation

Defendant 8, who was not a doctor, etc. on May 18, 2009, established a non-indicted 3’s medical life cooperative with its principal office in North Korea ( Address 17 omitted) to establish a medical institution, and was registered as the president of the above medical life consultation up to the day from that time. The principal office of the medical life consultation for non-indicted 3 was changed into the president of the medical life consultation around January 9, 2010 ( Address 18 omitted).

B. Defendant 8’s sole criminal conduct in relation to the establishment of an office for medical cooperation in the form of Nonindicted 3’s main office

피고인은 2010. 3. 25.경 (주소 18 생략)에서, 한의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 3 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 남원시청에 ‘▒▒한의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

C. Defendant 8 and 10 (Defendant 9 of the judgment of the court of appeal) related to the establishment of a office-affiliated hospital in the form of Nonindicted 3’s medical life cooperative branch

피고인 10은 2011. 3. 12.경 정읍시 (주소 19 생략)에서 ▲▲의원을 개설하기 위하여 피고인 8과 공소외 3 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 그 분사무소 형태로 ▲▲의원을 개설하기로 합의하였다. 이로써 피고인들은 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기로 공모하였다.

피고인 10은 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2011. 4. 27.경 정읍시 (주소 19 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사를 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 3 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 정읍시청에 ‘▲▲의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다. 또한, 피고인 10은 그 무렵 피고인 8에게 그 대가 명목으로 500만원을 교부하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

D. Defendant 1’s aiding and abetting the establishment of the above medical institution

On May 2009, the Defendant provided a file format, such as articles of incorporation and inaugural general meeting, and provided advice on the establishment procedure, with the knowledge of the fact that Defendant 8 established a medical institution in order to establish a medical institution.

As a result, Defendant 8 aided and abetted Defendant 8’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

7. As to the establishment of an office-general hospital affiliated with Nonindicted 19 Medical Cooperation

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 19 Medical Life Consultation

Defendant 1, who was not a doctor, etc. on April 16, 2010, was not a medical doctor, and established a 19 medical cooperation with Defendant 2’s principal office in Jung-gu Seoul ( Address 20 omitted). Defendant 12 (Defendant 11 in the judgment of the appellate court) was appointed as the president of the 19 medical cooperation on October 26, 2010 and was registered as the president until then. Meanwhile, around October 26, 2010, the principal office of the 19 medical consultation was changed to the address 21 omitted.

B. Establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 19 Medical Life Cooperatives Branch

(1) Defendant 1 and Defendant 11 (Defendant 10 in the judgment of the court of appeal) related to the establishment of a prison.

On April 23, 2010, Defendant 11 agreed to establish a medical institution by lending the name of Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 19 medical life consultation in order to establish a medical center in Seongbuk-gu Seoul ( Address 22 omitted). Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor, etc.

On April 23, 2010, Defendant 11, upon the above public invitation, employed a doctor, nurse, physical clinic, and provided a physical treatment room, etc., and then lent the name of Non-Indicted 19 medical students consultation to Seongbuk-gu Office to report the establishment of a medical institution. Defendant 11 loaned Defendant 1 with KRW 20 million or interest without compensation.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

(2) ◆◆◆의원 개설 관련 피고인 12의 단독범행

피고인 12는 2011. 10. 21.경 서울 노원구 (주소 23 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 입원실(26병상) 등을 구비한 후 공소외 19 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 서울노원구청에 ‘◆◆◆의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

다. ◆◆◆의원 개설 관련 피고인 1의 방조범행

On April 2010, the Defendant knew of the fact that Defendant 12 acquired Nonindicted 19’s medical cooperation in order to establish a medical institution at a place where the location is unknown, and transferred the name of the president to Defendant 12.

Accordingly, the Defendant 12 assisted and aided Defendant 12’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

8. Matters regarding the establishment of an office-general hospital using the name of Nonindicted 23 Medical Life Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 23 Medical Life Consultation

피고인 14(항소심판결의 피고인 13)는 2006. 12. 6.경부터 2010. 4.경까지 서울 강남구 (주소 24 생략)에서 공소외 24 사단법인의 명의를 빌려 ▼▼▼한의원을 운영하였던 사람이다. 피고인은 2010. 4.경 위 사단법인의 명의로 더 이상 ▼▼▼한의원을 운영할 수 없게 되자 공소외 23 의료생협을 설립하여 그 명의로 ▼▼▼한의원을 개설·운영하기로 마음먹고, 2010. 5. 16.경 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기 위하여 서울 강남구 (주소 24 생략)에 주사무소를 둔 공소외 23 의료생협을 설립하여 그 때로부터 현재까지 위 의료생협의 이사장으로 등재되어 있다.

B. Establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of the main office of Nonindicted 23 Medical Life Cooperatives

(1) (주소 24 생략) 소재 ▼▼▼한의원의 개설 관련 피고인 14의 단독범행

피고인은 2010. 5. 25.경 서울 강남구 (주소 24 생략)에 있는 ♣♣빌딩 2층에서, 한의사 1명, 직원 등을 고용하고 진료실, 검사실, 침구실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 23 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 강남구 보건소에 ‘▼▼▼한의원’이란 상호로 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

(2) (주소 25 생략) 소재 ▼▼▼한의원의 개설 관련 피고인 14의 단독범행

피고인은 2011. 3. 11.경 서울 강남구 (주소 25 생략)에서 한의사 1명, 직원 등을 고용하고 진료실, 검사실, 침구실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 23 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 강남구 보건소에 ‘▼▼▼한의원’이란 상호로 실질적인 의료기관의 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

C. Defendants 4 and 8 related to the establishment of the above office hall hospital

Defendant 4, despite being aware of the fact that Defendant 14 established Nonindicted 23’s medical cooperation in order to establish a medical institution at a place where it is difficult to know the place, around December 2009, instructed Defendant 8 to prepare related documents, such as articles of association, false minutes, false inaugural general meeting photographs, etc., and Defendant 8, upon the direction of Defendant 4, instructed Defendant 8 to prepare and report the establishment of the articles of association, false minutes, false inaugural general meeting photographs, etc., and provided the report procedure on establishment. In addition, Defendant 4 received KRW 40 million from Defendant 14 as compensation, and paid KRW 1 million among them under the pretext of Defendant 8.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and aided Defendant 14 to facilitate the violation of the Medical Service Act.

9. Matters regarding the establishment of an office-general hospital using the name of Nonindicted 26 Medical Life Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 26 Medical Life Consultation

Defendant 9, who was not a doctor, etc. on October 12, 2010 and was not a doctor, established a non-indicted 26 medical life cooperative with the principal office in the Cheongju-si ( Address 26 omitted) in order to establish a medical institution, and was registered as the president of the above medical life cooperative until now from that time. Meanwhile, the principal office of the medical life consultation was changed to that of Chungcheongbuk-do ( Address 27 omitted) on March 26, 201.

B. Defendant 9’s sole criminal conduct related to the establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 26 Medical Life Cooperatives’ principal office

피고인은 2011. 4. 20.경 충북 (주소 27 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 26 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 청원군청에 ‘☞☞의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

10. Matters regarding the establishment of an office-general hospital using the name of Nonindicted 7 Medical Organisms’ Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 7’s medical life consultation

Around November 5, 2010, Defendant 3 lent the name of Nonindicted 28, who is not a doctor, etc., to establish a medical institution, and entered it as the president, and established a Nonindicted 7 Medical Cooperation with the principal office in Chungcheongnam-Nam ( Address 28 omitted). Meanwhile, around July 22, 2011, the Defendant lent the name of Nonindicted 41, who is a branch office, to Nonindicted 28 through Nonindicted 41. In addition, the principal office of the medical birth consultation was changed to the first floor in Chungcheongnam-Nam ( Address 29 omitted) and that on July 22, 2011, the principal office of the medical birth agreement was changed to the address 30 omitted.

B. Establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 7 Medical Life Cooperatives Branch

(1) ◀◀◀◀의원 개설관련 피고인 3, 15(항소심판결의 피고인 14)의 공모범행

피고인 15는 2011. 2. 9.경 충남 (주소 31 생략) 2층에서 ◀◀◀◀의원을 개설하기 위하여 피고인 3과 공소외 7 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 그 분사무소 형태로 ◀◀◀◀의원을 개설하기로 합의하였다. 이로써 피고인들은 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기로 공모하였다.

피고인 15는 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2011. 2. 9.경 충남 (주소 31 생략) 2층에서, 의사 1명, 간호사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 7 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 홍성군청에 ‘◀◀◀◀의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

(2) Defendant 3 and 16 (Defendant 15 of the judgment of the court of appeal) related to the establishment of △△won

Around February 10, 2011, Defendant 16 agreed to establish a △△△ Council in the name of Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 7 medical students in order to promote the lease of a building, and to establish a △ Council in the form of a branch office. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor, etc.

On February 10, 2011, Defendant 16, according to the above public invitation, employed a doctor, a nurse, a physical clinic, etc. at the Cheongju-si ( Address 32 omitted), equipped with a treatment room, a water treatment room, etc., and reported the establishment of a medical institution under the name of the Cheongju-si who lent the name of Nonindicted 7 Medical Life Consultative Council to the Cheongju-si, and provided the report on the establishment of the medical institution.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

(3) ▶▶▶▶▶▶의원 개설 관련 피고인 3, 15의 공모범행

피고인 15는 2011. 9. 6.경 천안시 (주소 33 생략)에서 ▶▶▶▶▶▶의원을 개설하기 위하여 피고인 3과 공소외 7 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 그 분사무소 형태로 ▶▶▶▶▶▶의원을 개설하기로 합의하였다. 이로써 피고인들은 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기로 공모하였다.

피고인 15는 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2011. 2. 10.경 천안시 (주소 33 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 7 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 천안시청에 ‘▶▶▶▶▶▶의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

11. Establishment of a office hall hospital using the name of Nonindicted 29 Medical Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 29 Medical Life Consultation

Defendant 17 (Defendant 16 of the judgment of the court of appeal) was not a doctor, etc. on December 22, 2010, and was registered as the chief director of the above medical consultation to establish a medical institution at Daejeon ( Address 34 omitted).

B. Defendant 17’s sole criminal conduct in relation to the establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 29 Medical Life Cooperatives’ principal office

피고인은 2011. 6. 1.경 대전 (주소 34 생략) 2층, 3층에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 29 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 대전동구 보건소에 ‘♠♠♠♠의원’이라는 상호로 실질적인 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

C. Defendant 1’s aiding and abetting the establishment of the above medical institution

On December 2010, Defendant 17 provided file forms, such as articles of incorporation and inaugural general meeting, and provided advice on the establishment procedure, with knowledge of the fact that Defendant 17 established a medical institution in order to establish a medical institution.

As a result, Defendant 17 aided and abetted Defendant 17’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

12. Establishment of a office hall hospital using the name of Nonindicted 1’s medical cooperative

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted Party 1’s medical consultation

피고인 18은 2007. 5.경부터 2011. 1.경까지 공소외 42 의료법인의 명의를 빌려 성남시 (주소 35 생략)에서 ▣▣▣▣▣▣▣의원을 운영하면서 위 의료법인의 이사장인 박기홍에게 매월 200만 원의 명의대여료를 지급하였던 사람이다. 피고인은 2010. 10.경 위 의료법인의 폐업이 예정되어 더 이상 위 의료법인의 명의로 ▣▣▣▣▣▣▣의원을 운영할 수 없게 되자 공소외 1 의료생협을 설립하여 그 명의로 ▣▣▣▣▣▣▣의원을 개설·운영하기로 마음먹고, 2011. 2. 10.경 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기 위하여 성남시 (주소 35 생략)에 주사무소를 둔 공소외 1 의료생협을 설립하여 그때로부터 현재까지 위 의료생협의 이사장으로 등재되어 있다.

B. Defendant 18’s sole criminal conduct in relation to the establishment of an office-level hospital in the form of the main office of Nonindicted 1 Medical Cooperation

피고인은 2011. 2. 10.경 성남시 (주소 35 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 직원 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 1 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 중원구보건소에 ‘▣▣▣▣▣▣▣의원’이란 상호로 실질적인 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

C. Defendant 4’s aiding and abetting in relation to the establishment of the above office hall hospital

피고인은 2010. 10.경부터 2011. 2.경까지 장소를 알 수 없는 곳에서 피고인 18이 의료기관을 개설하기 위하여 공소외 1 의료생협을 설립한다는 사정을 알면서도 설립절차에 대하여 조언을 하고, 충주 ◑◑◑초등학교 선교단배구클럽 월례회식 사진을 공소외 1 의료생협 발기인대회 사진인 것처럼 조작하고, 충주 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙웨딩홀에서 열린 결혼식 사진을 공소외 1 의료생협 창립총회 사진인 것처럼 조작하여 피고인 18에게 제공하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant 18 aided and abetted Defendant 18’s violation of the Medical Service Act.

13. Concerning the establishment of an office hall in the name of Nonindicted 30 Medical Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to Nonindicted 30’s establishment of a medical life consultation

Defendant 23 (Defendant 22 of the judgment of the court of appeal) established Nonindicted 30 Medical Organisms Union, the principal office of which is located in Chungcheongnam-si ( Address 36 omitted) to establish a medical institution on February 22, 201, and was registered as the president of the above Medical Organisms Consultative Council from that time to that time. Meanwhile, around April 29, 201, Nonindicted 30 Medical Organisms Consultative Office was changed to the address 36 omitted.

B. Defendant 23’s sole criminal conduct related to the establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 30 Medical Life Fighting Cooperative’s principal office

On June 24, 2011, the Defendant: (a) employed a doctor, nurse, physical clinic, etc.; and (b) provided a medical treatment room, physical treatment room, etc.; and (c) reported the establishment of a medical institution with the name of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” in the name of Nonindicted 30 medical students consultation.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

14. Matters regarding the establishment of an office-general hospital using the name of Nonindicted 5’s medical cooperation

A. The circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 5’s medical consultation

Defendant 1, upon receiving a request for establishment from Nonindicted 44, who is a doctor, established Nonindicted 5’s medical life cooperatives with the principal office in Goyang-si ( Address 38 omitted), around March 29, 201, and registered Nonindicted 4, who is an employee of Nonindicted 44, as the chief director of the medical life consultation.

B. Defendants 1 and 19 (Defendant 18 of the judgment of the court of appeal) related to the establishment of a office-level hospital in the form of the main office of the medical life cooperative of Nonindicted 5.

피고인 19는 2011. 4. 8.경 고양시 (주소 38 생략) 201~204호에서 ♥♥의원을 개설하기 위하여 피고인 1과 공소외 5 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 그 주사무소 형태로 ♥♥의원을 개설하기로 합의하였다. 이로써 피고인들은 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기로 공모하였다.

피고인 19는 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2011. 4. 8.경 고양시 (주소 38 생략) 201-204호에서 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 5 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 고양시청에 ‘♥♥의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다. 또한, 피고인 19는 그 무렵 피고인 1에게 그 대가 명목으로 1,000만 원을 교부하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

C. Defendant 1 and 20 (Defendant 19 of the judgment of the court of appeal) related to the establishment of a office-affiliated hospital in the form of Nonindicted 5’s medical life cooperative branch

피고인 20은 2011. 4. 28.경 시흥시 (주소 39 생략) 2층에서 ▥▥의원을 개설하기 위하여 피고인 1과 공소외 5 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 그 분사무소 형태로 ▥▥의원을 개설하기로 합의하였다. 이로써 피고인들은 의사 등이 아닌 자로서 의료기관을 개설하기로 공모하였다.

피고인 20은 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2011. 4. 28.경 시흥시 (주소 39 생략) 2층에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사를 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 5 의료생협의 명의를 빌려 시흥시청에 ‘▥▥의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다. 또한, 피고인 20은 그 무렵 피고인 1에게 그 대가 명목으로 1,000만 원을 교부하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

15. Concerning the establishment of an office-general hospital using the name of Nonindicted 32 Medical Cooperatives

A. Circumstances leading to the establishment of Nonindicted 32 Medical Life Consultation

Defendant 21 (Defendant 20 of the judgment of the court of appeal) was registered as the president of the above medical students consultation, from March 30, 201 to the date of the establishment of a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor on March 30, 201, and whose principal office is located in the Cheongju-si ( Address 40 omitted) to establish a medical institution.

B. Defendant 21’s sole criminal conduct in relation to the establishment of an office-general hospital in the form of Nonindicted 32 Medical Life Cooperatives’ principal office

피고인은 2011. 3. 25.경 충주시 (주소 40 생략)에서, 의사 1명, 간호사, 물리치료사 등을 고용하고 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 공소외 32 의료생협의 명의를 이용하여 충주시청에 ‘▧▧▧▧▧▧의원’이라는 상호로 의료기관 개설신고를 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 4 and 12

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Nonindicted 12, 4, 3, 17, 8, 10, 11, 9, 7, 2, 4, 6, 20, 9, 13, and 22

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 45, 46, 47, and 10

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 2]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Defendants 1, 4, 12, 5, 3, and 6

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 10 and 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 3]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendants 1, 4, Nonindicted 12, Defendant 5, 6, 2, 16, and 15

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 10, 48, 28, and 37

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 4]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Defendants 1, 24 (Defendant 23 of the judgment of appeal), 12, 5, 3, 2, 8, 7, 6, 14, and 18

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 45, 10, 10, 39 against Nonindicted 48, and 39

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 5, 6]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol on Defendants 1, 4, 12, 3, and 2

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 10 and 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 7]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1, 4, and 8 by the prosecution;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 45 and 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 8]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect as to the defendant 1, 4, 10, 7, and 14;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 45 and 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 9, 13]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning Defendant 1;

1. Each prosecutorial protocol against Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 10]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 11]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1, 12, 2, and 8;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 12]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1, 2, 11, and 8;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 14]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 1, 4, and 8 by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 15, 16]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant 3;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48, 28, and 37

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 17]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 18]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 4;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 19, 20]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The witness Nonindicted 4’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 4 and Defendant 1

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 21]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. An interrogation protocol on Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 2]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

[Defendant 23]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness Nonindicted 48’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 4;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 48

1. Each investigation report (including attached documents and excluding part of the opinion of prosecution investigators);

Defendant 1: Article 87(1)2, Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of a medical institution by a person who is not a medical person), Article 87(1)2, Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 32 of the Criminal Act (the provision of aiding and abetting Violation of the Medical Service Act)

Defendant 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20: Article 87(1)2 and 33(2) of the Medical Service Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 4: Article 87(1)2, Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of a medical institution by a person who is not a medical person), Article 87(1)2, and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 32 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of an aiding and abetting in Violation of the Medical Service Act), Articles 87(1)2 and 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 32 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of aiding and abetting in Violation of the Medical Service Act)

Defendant 5 and 6: Articles 327 and 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 8: Article 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act, Article 33(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of a medical institution by a person who is not a medical person), Article 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act, Article 33(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 32 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of a public-private partnership for violating the Medical Service Act

Defendant 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23: Article 87(1)2, and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23: Selection of each imprisonment with prison labor.

Defendant 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20: Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15: former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 23: Article 62-2 of each Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Summary of the argument

All of the medical institutions of this case are medical institutions established by the medical life cooperative established with lawful authorization under the Consumer Cooperatives Act, and not medical institutions established by the Defendants, other than doctors, etc., in the name of medical life cooperative.

In other words, as long as the above medical cooperation exists with legitimate authorization, if there is an error in establishing or operating the medical consultation, it should be regulated by the relevant laws such as the Consumer Cooperatives Act, and it cannot be punished as a violation of the Medical Service Act.

B. Determination

The summary of criminal facts against the Defendants is that the Defendants, not doctors, etc., established a medical institution, and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act is subject to punishment for such acts. Meanwhile, according to Article 45 of the Consumer Cooperatives Act, a medical cooperative duly authorized for the establishment of a medical institution may conduct health and medical services for the improvement of health of its members. As such, the medical cooperative may establish a medical institution as its affiliated organization, and most of its establishment will be in charge of the head of the cooperative or the director. However, even if the head of the cooperative on medical students or the director’s status established a medical institution under the name of the affiliated organization, if the substance of the establishment was a medical institution, the establishment of such medical institution may be punished for violation of the Medical Service Act (i.e., whether the medical cooperative on medical students actually exists, whether there is any unlawful reason in the process of establishing or operating the medical student consultation, etc., and whether there is any specific reason for the establishment or operation of the aforementioned medical institution should be separately determined in the procedure of authorization for the establishment thereof.

Based on the above point of view, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, ① necessary facilities and expenses (such as building lease deposit, rent, medical equipment, and medical facilities, etc.) are borne by the Defendants as an individual individual for the establishment of each of the above medical institutions (the fund used for the above establishment costs, but is extremely low compared to the overall amount of expenses for the establishment of the medical institution) ② the Defendants directly employed the doctors or employees of each medical institution and paid their benefits; ③ the Defendants do not appear to have gone through the process of participating in the process of opening the medical association by presenting specific opinions among the medical association members; ④ the Defendants recruited the association members based on their families, relatives, and relatives while establishing the medical association, and most of their contributions were prepared by the Defendant or their families; ⑤ the Defendants, upon acquiring the medical institution in which they had been currently operated or operated; ② the Defendants, at the time of opening the medical association and its branch, opened the medical association and its operation expenses directly for the operation of the existing medical institution for the improvement of the medical association’s name, instead of operating expenses for the medical association.

2. Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion

A. Violation of the Medical Service Act regarding Nonindicted 8’s Medical Organisms and Nonindicted 5’s Medical Organisms Cooperation

(1) Summary of the argument

공소외 8 의료생협의 ◇◇◇◇◇◇의원, ▽▽▽▽의원, ◎◎치과의원을 개설하여 운영한 사람은 피고인 3, 4, 2가고, 피고인은 위 의료생협의 분사무소로서 의료기관을 개설하도록 도와준 것에 불과하다. 또한, 공소외 5 의료생협의 ♥♥의원과 ▥▥의원을 개설하여 운영한 사람은 피고인 19, 20가고, 피고인은 개설신고서 작성 등 개설행위를 도와준 것에 불과하여, 피고인은 위 각 범행에 대하여 의료법위반의 방조로 처벌되어야 한다.

(2) Determination

위 각 증거에 의해 인정되는 다음의 사정들 즉, ① 피고인은 피고인 3, 4, 2, 19, 20가 의료생협 명의로 의료기관을 설립함에 있어 그 설립 장소나 설립 방법 등에 대해 자세히 알려 주고 함께 의논하였던 점, ② 피고인은 공소외 8 의료생협 분사무소인 ▽▽▽▽의원, ◇◇◇◇◇◇의원의 개설과 관련하여 피고인 3, 4를 공소외 8 의료생협의 이사로 등재시킨 후 각 의원 명의로 통장을 개설해 주었고, 각 의원의 개설신고, 사업자등록, 요양기관 지정 신청 등을 하였던 점, ③ 피고인은 공소외 8 의료생협 분사무소인 ◎◎치과의원 개설과 관련하여 건물을 알아보고 의사를 고용하였으며 개설신고도 하였던 점, ④ 피고인은 공소외 5 의료생협의 발기인 모집이나 발기인대회 및 창립총회 개최를 공소외 4에게 지시하고, 회의록 등 서류 작성 등 설립 절차를 주도적으로 진행하였으며, ♥♥의원 및 ▥▥의원 개설시 공소외 5 의료생협의 법인설립인가증이나 법인 인감 등을 관리하면서 사용하였고, 개설신고 과정에도 관여하였던 점 등을 종합해 보면, 피고인은 피고인 3, 4, 2, 19, 20과 각 공모하여 의료생협 명의로 의료기관을 개설했음을 인정할 수 있다.

(b) Aid in violation of the Medical Service Act;

(1) Summary of the argument

Although the defendant provided file format such as articles of incorporation and inaugural general meeting in relation to the establishment of a medical life cooperative, the defendant did not help the establishment of a medical institution itself, and there was no intention of the principal offender (violation of Medical Service Act) necessary for aiding and abetting the defendant.

(2) Determination

An act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to any direct or indirect act that facilitates the principal offender’s act while being aware of the fact that the principal offender is committing the crime, and such aiding and abetting is established not only in the case of aiding and abetting the principal offender in the course of committing the crime, but also in the case of aiding and abetting the future and facilitating the commission of the principal offender prior to the commencement of the commission. Furthermore, the principal offender’s intent to assist and abetting the principal offender and the principal offender’s act is an act that constitutes the elements of the crime. However, in the event that the principal offender denies it, the principal offender is bound to prove by the method of proving indirect facts that are highly related to the principal offender’s intent due to the nature of the object, and the principal offender’s intent in aiding and abetting is not required to recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the principal offender’s negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4702, Oct.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., (i) the Defendant had already lent the name of Nonindicted 3 and 4 to Defendant 3 and had them establish a medical institution in the form of the above medical life consultation branch around 2007, and (ii) the person who has established a medical life cooperative knew that a person who is not a doctor, etc. may create a medical life cooperative after forming the medical life cooperative, and provided consultation with the Defendant and received documents necessary to create the medical life cooperative from the Defendant, even if the Defendant did not directly help establish the medical life cooperative, it can be recognized that the Defendant had been able to establish the medical life cooperative under the name of the medical life consultation, and had the medical life cooperative with the expected status.

3. Judgment on Defendant 8’s assertion

A. Violation of the Medical Service Act regarding Nonindicted 3 Medical Organisms Cooperation

(1) Summary of the argument

공소외 3 의료생협 명의로 ▲▲의원을 개설하여 운영한 것은 피고인 10이고, 피고인은 개설행위를 도와준 것에 불과하여, 피고인은 의료법위반의 방조로 처벌되어야 한다.

(2) Determination

위 각 증거에 의해 인정되는 다음의 사정들 즉, ① 피고인은 공소외 3 의료생협을 설립하였고, 피고인 10에게 공소외 3 의료생협 분사무소 형태로 ▲▲의원을 개설하는 것을 제의한 후 개설 장소, 방법 등에 대해 함께 논의하였던 점, ② 피고인은 피고인 10를 공소외 3 의료생협의 이사로 등재시킨 후 피고인 10와 함께 ▲▲의원의 의사를 채용하였고 ▲▲의원의 요양급여 입금 통장을 관리하기도 하였던 점 등을 종합해 보면, 피고인이 피고인 10와 공모하여 의료생협 명의로 의료기관을 개설했음을 인정할 수 있다.

B. Aiding and abetting the violation of the Medical Service Act regarding Nonindicted 23 Medical Collaboration

(1) Summary of the argument

There is no fact that the defendant was involved in the establishment of a medical institution by the defendant 14.

(2) Determination

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① Defendant 14 was established at the prosecutor’s office’s office after hearing the speech that it is possible to establish and operate a medical institution as an affiliated organization of the medical life cooperative through Defendant 4; ② Defendant 4 also stated that the Defendant was acting as an agent for the establishment of the medical life cooperative; ② Defendant 8 was the main agent for the establishment of the medical life cooperative at the prosecutor’s office’s investigation; ③ Defendant also stated that Defendant 8 was the main agent for the establishment of the medical life cooperative; ③ Defendant also stated that Defendant prepared documents, such as the minutes of the promoters’ meeting, the minutes of the inaugural general meeting, the articles of association, the list of union members, etc. upon Defendant 4’s request, at the prosecutor’s investigation. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant 14 assisted Defendant

4. Judgment on Defendant 11’s assertion

A. Summary of the argument

The Defendant was employed by Nonindicted 19 Medical Personnel Consultative Officers, and did not establish and operate a member.

B. Determination

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence are as follows: (i) around April 2010 at the time of investigation conducted by the prosecution, the Defendant: (a) reported the establishment of the sourology department in the name of a medical center affiliated with Nonindicted 21 operated by the Defendant, which was a medical center affiliated with the 19 medical life cooperative; (b) and (c) stated that the Defendant offered monthly salary to the employees while managing the head of the investigation center; and (b) Defendant 1 discussed in the prosecutor’s investigation that the Defendant and Nonindicted 19 medical life cooperative should be established in the name of the 19 medical life cooperative; (c) accordingly, the Defendant registered the Defendant as a director from the time of the establishment of the 19 medical life cooperative; and (d) stated that the Defendant was aware that the establishment of the 19 medical life cooperative was submitted; and (c) around March 4, 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to Defendant 1, who was affiliated with the 19 medical life cooperative.

5. Judgment on Defendant 13’s assertion

A. Summary of the argument

The defendant has been working in the △△ Council with monthly salary from Defendant 9 and has not opened and operated △△ Council members.

B. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① before and after May 201 through October 201, the head of △△△△ Group’s medical care benefit account from around 25 to around 201, the KRW 1.5 million was transferred from around the 25th day of each month to the Defendant 9’s account. After the investigation into the medical life cooperative was commenced, on November 25, 2011, the Defendant wired the amount of KRW 1.5 million to the Defendant 9’s account in his own name, and the Defendant appears to have paid KRW 1.5 million each month to the Defendant 9 in relation to the operation of the △△△△△△ Fund (the Defendant’s act is difficult to be deemed as the Defendant’s act simply committed by the employees of 9). ② According to the Defendant’s monetary content inquiry, the Defendant conspired Defendant 9 with the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ branch, the Defendant appears to have paid KRW 1.

In addition to the above circumstances, in consideration of the degree and method of the Defendants’ respective crimes, the number of punishment, the history of punishment, and the recognition of facts, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered by the Defendants (in particular, Defendants 1, 3, 4, and 9 are recognized to have established a medical life cooperative and provided information on the method of committing the crimes to others in addition to using it for their own crimes, thereby soliciting or aiding them to commit the crimes, and the nature of the crimes is more severe).

A. Defendant 3’s sole charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted 14 Medical Cooperation

In the daily economy division of the Chungcheongbuk-do Office around February 2, 2008, the Defendant did not attend the inaugural general meeting of Nonindicted 14 medical students with more than 40 persons and did not considerably exceed 150 persons for the quorum. However, 270 persons attend the meeting and approved the establishment of Nonindicted 14 medical students, the Defendant submitted the minutes of the inaugural general meeting, which operated as if he approved the establishment of Nonindicted 14 medical students, to Nonindicted 50 persons in charge, and received authorization for the establishment on February 14, 2008.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of public officials, etc. belonging to the Chungcheongbuk-do Office in charge of authorization for the establishment of medical students consultation through fraudulent means.

B. Defendant 22’s sole charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization to establish Nonindicted 16 Medical Cooperation

In the economic policy of the Gyeonggi-do Office around July 2008, the Defendant did not attend only 70 to 80 medical students at the inaugural general meeting of the 16 medical students agreement and did not reach a much less than 150 number of the quorums. However, at least 150 persons attend the meeting and approved the establishment of Nonindicted 16 medical students agreement, and submitted the minutes and photographs of the inaugural general meeting to Nonindicted 38 and received authorization for the establishment on July 7, 2008.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the Gyeonggi-do Economic Policy and its affiliated public officials, etc. in charge of authorization for the establishment of medical students consultation through fraudulent means.

C. Defendant 8’s sole criminal act of obstructing the performance of official duties by fraudulent means regarding the authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted 3’s medical cooperation

On May 18, 2009, the Defendant submitted to Nonindicted 51 the minutes of the inaugural general meeting, which was formulated as if he attended the meeting and approved the establishment of Nonindicted 3 Medical Livelihood Consultative Meeting, to Nonindicted 51 in charge, even though the person who consented to the establishment of Nonindicted 3 Medical Life Consultative Meeting was not present at the inaugural general meeting of Nonindicted 3 Medical Life Consultative Meeting and was much short of the quorum 150.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by public officials, etc. in charge of the living economy of the Jeonbuk-do in charge of authorization for the establishment of medical life consultation through fraudulent means.

D. Defendant 1’s sole charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted 19 Medical Organisms Consultation

The facts in the living economy division of the Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 1, 2010 did not hold a meeting of the promoters for the medical life consultation of Nonindicted 19 or the inaugural general meeting, and even if the Defendant paid in full the amount of KRW 32 million investment, the Defendant submitted to Nonindicted 36 in charge of Nonindicted 36 a photograph and its minutes as if he/she held the inaugural general meeting on October 10, 2009, and submitted the photograph and its minutes as if he/she did so on March 10, 2010, as if he/she held the inaugural general meeting, so that the persons consenting to the establishment (members) did not exceed 20/100 of the total amount of investment paid in equal shares, and obtained authorization for the establishment on April 12, 2010.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of public officials, etc. belonging to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office in charge of authorization for the establishment of medical students consultation through fraudulent means.

E. Defendant 4, 8, and 14’s obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization for establishment of Nonindicted 23’s medical consultation

On May 2010, the Defendants conspiredd to obtain authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted 23 Medical Life Consultative Meeting by submitting a fabricated photograph as if they were held, even though the Defendants did not have held the 23 Medical Life Consultative Meeting or an inaugural general meeting.

Defendant 8 and 14, according to the above public offering, did not hold a meeting of the promoters for Nonindicted 23 Medical Life Consultative Meeting or an inaugural general meeting at the early May 2010, in fact, Defendant 8 and 14 submitted to the person in charge of Nonindicted 36 a motion to hold the promoters’ meeting on February 6, 2010 and the minutes of the motion, which were fabricated as if the inaugural general meeting was held on March 10, 2010, and obtained authorization for the establishment on May 6, 2010.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by public officials, etc. of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office in charge of authorization for the establishment of medical life consultation through fraudulent means.

F. Defendant 9’s sole charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted 26 Medical Cooperation

On September 15, 2010, the Defendant submitted the minutes and photographs of the inaugural general meeting, which was formulated as if at least 150 persons attended and approved the establishment of Nonindicted 26 medical life consultation, to Nonindicted 52 in charge of Nonindicted 26 on September 15, 2010, even though the number of persons consenting to the establishment at the inaugural general meeting of Nonindicted 26 medical life consultation was much less than 150 persons because the number of persons consenting to the establishment was not more than 10 persons.

G. Defendant 3’s sole charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted 7 Medical Cooperation

Around October 2010, the Defendant submitted to Nonindicted 37 the minutes of the inaugural general meeting, which was formulated as if he/she attended the meeting and approved the establishment of Nonindicted 7’s medical life consultation, to Nonindicted 37 on October 26, 2010, even though the number of persons (members) consenting to the establishment of Nonindicted 7’s general meeting was more than 70, and the number of persons (members) were much less than 150 and less than 150.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the public officials, etc. of the Chungcheongnam-do Job Economy Policy and its affiliated public officials in charge of authorization for the establishment of medical students consultation through fraudulent means.

H. Defendant 17’s sole charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization to establish the medical life agreement for Nonindicted 29 medical practitioners

The Defendant submitted to Nonindicted 35, on October 11, 2010, an investment list, etc., which was fabricated as if the Defendant paid in full the amount of KRW 32 million to the Daejeon Metropolitan City Office’s economic policy and office around early October 2010, and was approved for the establishment on October 11, 2010.

I. Defendant 4 and 18’s obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted Party 1’s medical consultation

On October 2010, Defendant 4 and 18 conspiredd to obtain authorization for establishment of Nonindicted 1’s medical life consultation by manipulating photographs and minutes, as they were held without holding Nonindicted 1’s conference and inaugural general meeting at a place where the address of the Chungcheong City is unknown.

피고인 4는 2010. 10.경 충주시 소재 주소를 알 수 없는 곳에서 충주 ◑◑◑초등학교 선교단배구클럽 월례회식 사진을 공소외 1 의료생협 발기인대회 사진인 것처럼 조작하고, 충주 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙웨딩홀에서 열린 충주시 배구인의 밤 행사 사진을 공소외 1 의료생협 창립총회 사진인 것처럼 조작하여 이를 피고인 18에게 제공하였다.

Defendant 18 submitted the photographs of the promoters’ conference and the inaugural general meeting organized by Defendant 4 even though he did not hold a meeting of the promoters’ conference or the inaugural general meeting for the first time around January 201, 201, and submitted the minutes of the meeting prepared by Defendant 18 to obtain authorization for establishment around January 20, 2011.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the economic policy of the Gyeonggi-do Office in charge of the authorization for the establishment of medical life consultation through a deceptive scheme.

(j) Defendant 23 and 24’s obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted 30’s medical consultation

On October 2010, Defendant 23 and 24 conspiredd to obtain authorization for establishment of Nonindicted 30 medical students agreement by manipulating the photographs and minutes as if they were lawfully held even if they did not lawfully hold the 30 medical students agreement conference and the inaugural general meeting at a place where the address of the Chungcheong City was unknown.

피고인 24는 2010. 10-12.경 충주시 소재 주소를 알 수 없는 곳에서 그 정을 모르는 선교단배구클럽회장인 공소외 25를 통하여 충주 ◑◑◑초등학교 선교단배구클럽 월례회식 사진을 공소외 1 의료생협 발기인대회 사진인 것처럼 조작하고, 충주 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙웨딩홀에서 열린 충주시 배구인의 밤 행사 사진을 공소외 1 의료생협 창립총회 사진인 것처럼 조작하여 이를 피고인 23에게 제공하였다.

Defendant 23 was approved on January 24, 201 by submitting to Nonindicted 52 the minutes of the operation as if at least 150 persons were present at the inaugural general meeting for the first medical students of the Chungcheongbuk-do Office, even though only ten persons (members) were present at the meeting for the first medical students of the Republic of Korea, and the aforementioned photographs were submitted to the person in charge of Nonindicted 52.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate performance of duties of the public officials, etc. of the Chungcheongbuk-do in charge of authorization for the establishment of medical life consultation through a deceptive scheme.

(k) Defendant 21’s sole charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means related to the authorization for the establishment of Nonindicted 32 medical consultation

Around the beginning of March 2011, the Defendant: (a) in the Living Economy Department of the Chungcheongbuk-do Office, at the inaugural general meeting of Nonindicted 32 medical students was present at the meeting of Nonindicted 32 medical students; (b) even though the number of persons consenting to the establishment was much less than 30, as if the quorum was satisfied; (c) operated the photograph of the inaugural general meeting issued by a third party as if the third party was the photograph of the inaugural general meeting of medical students, and submitted it to Nonindicted 52, a person in charge. In addition, the Defendant prepared and submitted false minutes related thereto, and obtained authorization for the establishment around March 25, 201.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by public officials, etc. of the Chungcheongbuk-do in charge of authorization for the establishment of medical life consultation through fraudulent means.

2. Determination

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendants fabricated or forged the promoters' competitions, the minutes of the inaugural general meeting, photographs, and investment payment certificates submitted by the defendants to obtain the authorization of the medical mutual aid association, and thereby interfere with the public performance of the medical mutual aid authorization.

When an administrative agency grants authorization or permission in accordance with an application, it shall examine and decide on whether to grant authorization or permission on the premise that the grounds for the application are inconsistent with the facts. As such, if an administrative agency approves or permits the applicant’s belief that the grounds for a false application or false supporting materials submitted by the applicant are somewhat unjustifiable without sufficiently verifying such facts, it is due to insufficient examination by the administrative agency, and thus, it does not constitute the principal grounds for the occurrence of fraudulent means, and thus, it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9590, Oct. 28, 2010, etc.).

The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., public officials in charge of the affairs of authorization to establish the above medical association, (i) although the public officials in charge of the affairs of authorization to establish the above medical association did not discover any particular fact in the process of examining the authorization, they stated that the main promoters' competition and the inaugural general meeting should not be authorized if they were aware of the fact that the main promoters' competition or the inaugural general meeting was held, and the number of participants was erroneous; (ii) the documents to be submitted at the time of applying for authorization to establish the medical association are not prepared and submitted by a reliable third party; and (iii) the public officials in charge of the examination are not obliged to strictly examine the documents prepared by the applicant, taking into account such fact into account; (iii) the public officials in charge of the affairs of authorization to establish the inaugural general meeting are important items to determine whether to hold the inaugural general meeting; (iv) whether to permit the establishment of a daily meeting, including the minutes of the inaugural general meeting and the list of participants; and (v) whether to approve the general meeting (public officials in charge or not.)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus, is pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Defendant 24 is ordered to disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence of the above defendant pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per

Judges Cho Jae-hwan