특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A and B are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant A donated or replaced the amount of money invested to F, G, and H, and I and J made a written resolution at the inaugural general meeting. As such, Defendant C Medical Consumer Cooperatives was established without procedural defects for the first elderly medical care center project.
Even if Defendant C medical consumer cooperatives were established in a procedurally and unlawfully.
Even if T was led by the establishment process, Defendant A and B did not know such fact.
Accordingly, Defendant A and B are the chief director and directors of Defendant C Medical Consumer Cooperatives and each of the medical institutions of this case (L dental, P, AI, Q, N, M, and O members).
At the time of opening and operating a medical service corporation, there was no violation of the Medical Service Act and no intention of fraud.
Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendants of all the charges of this case by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Medical Service Act and fraud due to the establishment of non-medical personnel.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of imprisonment for each of the Defendants A, B, three years of suspended sentence, and fine of ten million won for the Defendant C Medical Consumer Cooperative) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant A and B is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ act of employing medical personnel by investing necessary funds with facilities and reporting the establishment of a medical institution under the name of a non-medical person violates the main sentence of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, as it merely pretends to establish a legitimate medical institution only formally.
The report of establishment was made under the name of medical person, or a medical person who is the name of the report was directly engaged in medical practice.