Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant .

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles - violation of the Mental Health Act due to hospitalization without documents, and L had already been hospitalized at the instant hospital submitted documents to verify whether the patient was unqualified for protection. At the time of each of the instant hospitalization, each of the instant hospitals confirmed the unqualified for protection through search on the member information site of the National Health Insurance Corporation.

In the case of S, a certified copy of resident registration has been submitted to an outpatient patient who had received treatment together with T, and the date of hospitalization of this case has been in an urgent situation, and thus, the measure of hospitalization has been taken first, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have any document verifying that the above patient is a person without protection in the course of hospitalization.

(2) In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles - Fraud - fraud - The defendant is a patient hospitalized as a person without the protection of the subordinate market, and the defendant was ordered to discharge on August 28, 2014, and the defendant requested the staff in charge of the Cheongnam-si to accept the patient, but the measure of discharge was delayed. Thus, the defendant cannot be punished as fraud for extending hospitalization due to non-performance of the discharge order and receiving additional medical care expenses. The defendant's act constitutes legitimate act or emergency evacuation.

Even if not,

Even if the Defendant was staying in the U.S. from May 18, 2013 to October 24, 2014, the Defendant did not directly participate in the operation of the instant hospital, and did not know at all the time the Defendant returned to the Republic of Korea after MA was released from the hospital and did not know of the situation at which MA was discharged from the hospital. Therefore, the Defendant had the criminal intent of deceiving the Defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

(3) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 2,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor (1)’s improper sentencing - The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unfluent and unreasonable.

(2) misunderstanding of facts and legal principles - Defendant B and C