All appeals filed by A, D and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D (1) misunderstanding of facts is merely acquiring ownership of real estate located in a hospital to recover the claim, and there is no fact that Defendant A operated the hospital together with Defendant A.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant D (the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of execution of one year, and the fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

C. (1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts, it is recognized that Defendant B provided money to Defendant A for the purpose of sales promotion, and Defendant B’s act can be assessed as a wholesaler’s act. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding

(2) Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The act of establishing a medical institution prohibited by Article 33(2) and Article 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant D refers to the act of a non-medical person to deal with the establishment of the medical institution in a leading manner, such as the recruitment and management of facilities and human resources, the report on establishment, the implementation of medical business, the raising of necessary funds, and

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da2629, Oct. 27, 2011). Moreover, in a case where two or more persons are co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is a combination of two or more persons who intend to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. As such, if a combination of intent is made by either consecutive or impliedly and through such conspiracy, the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, a person who did not directly participate in the act of execution shall be held liable for the other co-offenders’ act as a co-principal.

Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080 Decided August 23, 2013