Nevertheless, on the sole basis of the testimony of the witness I without credibility, the Defendant provided medical treatment to the “H member” and provided duplicate establishment and operation of the medical institution.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and violating the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. Considering the legislative purport, etc. of the main text of Article 33(8) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 11252, Feb. 1, 2012) that allows a medical person to establish only one medical institution, where a doctor who has already established and operated a council member under his/her own name employs another doctor in his/her own name and newly establishes a council member under his/her own name and directly participates in the operation of the council member and engages in a medical act under his/her own authority by employing a non-medical person, the medical person cannot be exempted from the criminal liability for the violation of the above Medical Service Act in cases where a newly established council member engages in a medical act under his/her own authority or by employing a non-medical person, and the other doctor was either directly engaged in a part of the medical act in his/her own name or reported separately by the two newly established council members, but is not separated from each other, and actually operated as a single council

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant had already established a Council member under his/her name, but did not directly establish a Council member under his/her own name, and did not directly perform a medical act in H Council member, and did not directly establish a Council member under his/her own name (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do256, Oct. 23, 2003; 2006Do4652, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.).