The part against Defendant A, B, and D shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be the Seoul Eastern District Court.

1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. (1) Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act prohibits, in principle, the establishment of a medical institution by any person other than a medical person, medical corporation, or non-profit corporation, etc., and the provision of punishment for a violation of Article 87(1)2 of the same Act is to establish a sound medical order by strictly limiting the qualification for the establishment of a medical institution to medical personnel or a person with a public nature, and to prevent in advance risks to national health that may arise when a medical institution is established for profit-making purposes.

The act of establishing a medical institution prohibited under the Medical Service Act refers to the act of a non-medical person to supplement and manage facilities and human resources of a medical institution, report on establishment, conduct of medical business, raise necessary funds, and transfer of management performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do7217, Sept. 25, 2014; 2009Do2629, Oct. 27, 201). Therefore, the aforementioned series of acts conducted by a non-medical person in the leading position constitutes a single crime, barring any special circumstance, and the establishment of the medical institution cannot be deemed as terminated at the time of the completion of the report, and the establishment of the medical institution shall not be deemed as terminated only when a non-medical person deviates from the leading relationship as above.

(2) In a case where a number of acts falling under the name of the same crime continues to be committed for a single and continuous period under the same criminal intent and the legal interests and interests of the same person are identical, each of these acts should be punished by a single crime among them. However, where the unity and continuity of a criminal intent are not recognized or the method of committing a crime is not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8645, Nov. 11, 2010). Medical Service Act strictly limits the qualification to establish a medical institution (Article 33(2)).