A. Defendants 1 and 2 did not order the assistant nurse H to replace the I’s test requirement. However, H’s independent replacement of the test requirement and did not report ex post facto. 2) The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant B: fine of KRW 2 million) is too heavy.

B. Even if Defendant A-M legal principles H replaced the G convalescent in compliance with the direction from Defendant B, the G convalescent hospital operated by Defendant A (hereinafter “instant hospital”) is larger than 7 specialized departments, such as the interior of the 2nd and the 7th floor above the ground, and it is practically impossible to demand Defendant A to supervise and supervise all medical doctors, nurses, and assistant nurses in light of the status as the head of the Defendant A’s hospital. Therefore, it is practically impossible to expect Defendant A to perform daily and specific medical treatments.

Therefore, it is against the principle of responsibility to impose the responsibility for the violation of the Medical Service Act on the defendant A on the ground of such neglect of obligation.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, H replaced an official with Defendant B’s instruction from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the head of the division in the case where there is a lack or critical patient even prior to the case, and the defendant B provided medical practice and reported ex post facto at the time of the instruction of the responsible nurse, as shown in the judgment of the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant B conspired with H to perform non-licensed medical care for the scopic substitution of the scopic and did not prepare the records on the treatment and nursing, so this part of the defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court as to the assertion of legal principles.