보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반(부정의료업자)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In full view of the fact that T was not specifically requested by A, but there is no reason to request the investigative agency to give a false statement to the Defendant, or that T was unable to be deemed to have received a free sentence from A in light of the degree of friendship between T and A, and the size and form of correspondence, the statement made by T’s investigative agency to the effect that “T was given the Defendant’s business (S) with the introduction of the U is more reliable, and the court below acquitted the Defendant of the fact that T and U’s legal statement made by the court below that the reason for reversal was not continuous, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The judgment of the court below and the trial court found the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., "T has received a sentence from the defendant" at the investigation agency, but at the court below and the trial court, "T has made a false statement that he had received a sentence at the defendant's business place he became aware that he had received a sentence at the time when he was aware of the fact that he had received a sentence from the defendant," and it appears that "T has received a sentence at the defendant's business place he became aware that he had received a sentence at the time when he had received a sentence," and it appears that the court below and the court below acknowledged T's own sentence as well as at the trial (in the court below, the prosecutor asked the defendant T and the prosecutor did not know his telephone contents in order to confirm whether he had replaced the defendant's statement under the prior mother, but it did not have been found that the defendant's statement at the investigation agency was "I would have known the defendant's business place in the court below and the defendant's business place."