However, with respect to defendants 2 and 3, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the conclusion of this judgment.

Where Defendants 1, 4, 5, and 6 fail to pay the above fine, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

On February 4, 2016, Defendant 5 was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Medical Service Act, etc. at the Sungwon District Court's Sung-nam branch on February 4, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 2017.

1. Defendant 1

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act (Establishment of non-medical persons);

Although Defendant 1 is not a dentist, he employed a dentist to establish and operate the so-called so-called office hospital (a medical person, such as office director, etc., opened and operated in the name of an employment doctor).

1) Establishment and operation of ○○○○ and △△△△△△ Points

A) On June 23, 2015, Defendant 1 in collusion with Defendant 3 of a dentist, provided equipment necessary for the thermal therapy, corrective treatment, and clinical therapy on the third floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), and reported the establishment of a dental clinic under the name of Defendant 3, a dentist, to the Seoul Gangseo-gu Public Health Center. From around that time to August 27, 2015, Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above ○○○○ dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, etc., and Defendant 3 established a dental clinic, a medical institution, not a dentist, by performing dental treatment against patients who were receiving monthly salary from Defendant 1 and found at the same time.

B) In collusion with Defendant 4, around August 28, 2015, Defendant 1 opened a dental clinic, which is a medical institution, at the ○○○ dental clinic located in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ dental clinic, with the aforementioned equipment installed. From around that time to October 15, 2015, Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, etc., and Defendant 4, the above Defendant 1, who was not a dentist, established a dental clinic as a medical institution, by performing dental treatment against the patients who were receiving monthly salary from Defendant 1 and found at the same time.

C) On October 16, 2015, Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 5 of a dentist and provided the aforementioned equipment at the ○○○ dental clinic located in the said new dental clinic, and changed the name of the founder of the said dental clinic to Defendant 5 at the Seoul Gangseo-gu Public Health Center. From around that time to February 14, 2016, Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, etc., and Defendant 5, the above Defendant 1, who was not a dentist, established a dental clinic, a medical institution, by performing dental treatment against the patients who were receiving monthly salary from Defendant 1 and found there.

D) On February 15, 2016, Defendant 1 conspiredd with Defendant 6, a dentist, with the aforementioned equipment installed at the ○○○○ dental clinic located in the said new dental clinic. The name of the founder of the said dental clinic was changed to Defendant 6 at the Seoul Gangseo-gu Public Health Center. From around that time to March 14, 2017, Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, etc., and Defendant 6, the above Defendant 1, who was not a dentist, established a dental clinic, a medical institution, by performing dental treatment against the patients who were receiving monthly salary from Defendant 1 and found at the same time.

2) Opening and operation of ○○○ and △△ Points

A) On September 4, 2015, Defendant 1 conspired with the Defendant 3 of a dentist and filed a report on the establishment of dental clinic with the name of ○○○○ dental clinic (hereinafter “○○○○○ dental clinic”) under the name of the above Defendant 3, a dentist, at the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 2 omitted). From around that time to December 17, 2015, Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above ○○○○ dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, etc., and the above Defendant 3 established a dental clinic, a medical institution, not a dentist, by performing dental treatment against the patients who received monthly salary from Defendant 1 and found at that place.

B) On December 20, 2015, Defendant 1 conspiredd with Nonindicted 1 of a dentist and provided equipment necessary for dental treatment, including dental treatment, and changed the name of the founder of the above dental clinic to Nonindicted 1, a dentist. From around that time to April 12, 2017, Defendant 1 was in charge of raising and operating expenses for attracting patients; Defendant 1, along with the above Nonindicted 1, took charge of operating the above ○○○○○○ dental clinic clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management; Defendant 1, a medical institution, who was not a dentist, established a dental clinic by means of dental treatment against patients, who were receiving operating expenses from Defendant 1 and sought from Defendant 1.

(b) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes;

Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 9 for profit. On March 14, 2017, at the ○○○○ dental clinic store located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant 1: (a) employees of the above members’ clerical staff, such as Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 9, have taken dental X-ray photographs from patients; (b) Defendant 1 had taken a c,730,000 won from patients at the above ○○○ dental clinic store from October 27, 2015 to September 29, 2016 and received 3,730,000 won in total from patients; and (c) Defendant 1 had taken dental surgery against many patients, including Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 9, who were not a dentist, and had taken dental surgery from June 1, 2015 to March 14, 2017.

(c) Fraud;

1) A medical institution established by a non-medical person cannot file a claim for medical care benefits or medical benefits under the National Health Insurance Act. The above ○○○○ and △△△ branch were members of the National Health Insurance Corporation established by Defendant 1, not medical personnel. Defendant 1, in collusion with the above Defendant 3, and Defendant 1 received KRW 29,84,460 in total from the National Health Insurance Corporation to December 23, 2015, by receiving KRW 5,291,870 from the National Health Insurance Corporation, upon receiving a claim for medical care benefits under the name of a dentist Defendant 3 from the above ○○○○ and △ branch located in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) on October 21, 2015.

2) A medical institution established by a non-medical person cannot file a claim for medical care benefits or medical benefits under the National Health Insurance Act, and the above ○○○○ and △△△ branch were practically members of the National Health Insurance Corporation, not medical personnel, and Defendant 1, in collusion with the above non-indicted 1, and Defendant 1 received a sum of KRW 204,183,410 from the National Health Insurance Corporation to April 25, 2017 by receiving a claim for medical care benefits under the name of a dentist non-indicted 1 from the above ○○○ and △ branch located in Jung-gu, Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) around January 29, 2016, and received a sum of KRW 4,130,000 from the victim to April 25, 2017.

2. Defendant 2

On June 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received brokerage fees to establish dental clinics in the name of a dentist; (b) introduced Defendant 3, a dentist, to a new employment doctor by the same method around August 2015; (c) introduced Defendant 4 as a new employment doctor; and (d) introduced Defendant 5 as a new employment doctor by means of the same method around October 2015; and (e) introduced Defendant 6 as a new employment doctor by introducing Defendant 1 to a new employment doctor, as described in the above Defendant 3, etc., as described in Article 1-1(a).

3. Defendant 3

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

1) Establishment and operation of ○○○○ and △△△△△△ Points

Defendant 3 conspired with the above Defendant 1, around June 23, 2015, equipped with equipment necessary for the thermal treatment, corrective treatment, and sprinking treatment on the third floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), and filed a report on the establishment of a dental clinic under the name of a dentist with the name of ○○○ dental clinic. From around that time to August 27, 2015, the above Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above ○○○ dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, and Defendant 3 established a dental clinic, a medical institution, not a dentist, by performing dental treatment against the patient who was receiving monthly salary from the above Defendant 1 and found at that place.

2) Opening and operation of ○○○ and △△ Points

Defendant 3 conspired with the above Defendant 1 on September 4, 2015, equipped with equipment necessary for dental treatment, such as thermal therapy, and filed a report on the establishment of dental clinic under the name of a dentist with the name of ○○○○○ dental clinic (terminal) in the Seoul Central District Health Center. From around that time to December 17, 2015, the above Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above ○○○○ dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, etc., and Defendant 3, other than a dentist, opened a dental clinic, which is a medical institution, by providing dental treatment for patients who were receiving monthly water from Defendant 1 and found at the same time.

(b) Fraud;

The medical institution established by non-medical persons cannot file a claim for medical care benefits or medical care benefits under the National Health Insurance Act. The above ○○○○ and △△△△△ established by the above Defendant 1, rather than medical personnel. Defendant 3, in collusion with the above Defendant 1, filed a claim for medical care benefits with the National Health Insurance Corporation at the above ○○○○ and △△○○ located in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, and received KRW 5,291,870 from the National Health Insurance Corporation and received KRW 5,291,870 from the victim. From around that time to December 23, 2015, the sum of KRW 29,884,460, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (1) was received from the National Health Insurance Corporation and received from the victim.

4. Defendant 4

Defendant 4 conspired with the above Defendant 1, on August 28, 2015, equipped with the aforementioned equipment at the ○○○○ dental clinic located in the said new dental clinic, and changed the name of the founder of the said dental clinic to Defendant 4 at the Seoul Gangseo-gu Public Health Center. From around that time to October 15, 2015, Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, etc., and Defendant 4, who was receiving monthly salary from the above Defendant 1 and sought medical treatment from the said patients, had Defendant 1, who was not a dentist, establish a dental clinic, a medical institution.

5. Defendant 5

Defendant 5 conspired with the above Defendant 1, on October 16, 2015, equipped with the aforementioned equipment at the ○○○ dental clinic located in the said new dental clinic, and changed the name of the founder of the said dental clinic to Defendant 5 at the Seoul Gangseo-gu Public Health Center. From around that time to February 14, 2016, Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above dental clinic’s facilities, employees, and fund management, etc., and Defendant 5, who was receiving monthly salary from the above Defendant 1 and found out at the same time, had Defendant 1, not a dentist, establish a dental clinic, a medical institution.

6. Defendant 6

Defendant 6 conspired with the above Defendant 1 on February 15, 2016, with the aforementioned equipment installed at the ○○○ dental clinic located in the said new dental clinic, and changed the name of the founder of the said dental clinic to Defendant 6 at the Seoul Gangseo-gu Public Health Center. From around that time to March 14, 2017, the above Defendant 1 took charge of the operation of the above dental clinic’s facilities, employees, fund management, etc., and Defendant 6, who was receiving monthly salary from the above Defendant 1 and sought medical treatment for the patients who found at the same time, had Defendant 1, who was not a dentist, establish a dental clinic, a medical institution.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1 and 3

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 2, Defendant 4, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 5

1. The defendant 3's partial statement

1. Some statements of the suspect interrogation protocol against Defendants 1 and 3 by the prosecution

1. Each police interrogation protocol against Defendants 4, 2, 7, 9, and 8

1. Some statements of each police interrogation protocol against Defendants 6 and 3

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 15

1. Some of the statements made by the police against the defendant 5, non-indicted 16, and non-indicted 17

1. A written statement of the defendant 6

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A report on internal investigation (the report of the head of ○○○ and changes in the report of the opener), investigation report (the report of the radiation image list), investigation report (the investigation of the details of the medical care benefits at 00 and the post office), investigation report (the date and time, etc. related to the health crime in the outside of the prosecution) and investigation report (the investigation of the account of the bank

1. Submission of data upon a request for cooperation in investigation;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records (defendants 5) and investigation reports (a copy of the written judgment attached to the defendant 5);

[1] Defendant 1 and his defense counsel asserted that even though Defendant 1 performed his duties as a dental sanitarian, there is no fact that Defendant 5 did not provide a transparent correction and acparation to many patients, such as Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 12 (Article 1-2).

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, during the period stated in the crime, can be recognized as having performed medical acts against many patients for transparent correction, such as sama or deletion, correction, sacrife treatment, such as sacrife treatment, and sacrife treatment, such as sacrife treatment. Accordingly, Defendant 1’s charges of violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (unlawful Medical Service Providers) are all found guilty.

(1) A dental technician is merely capable of providing ancillary services and preventing such services according to the direction of a dentist, and even if not directly providing medical treatment, a dental doctor is also the area unique to a doctor’s own medical examination and examination conducted against a patient, the reading of radiation photographing images, and the diagnosis and treatment methods based thereon.

(2) A dental sanitarian in relation to correction can only carry out a temporary correction device, with respect to the original correction device, including a transparent correction, it is the doctor's medical examination and treatment area, and it falls under the category of thief doctor's treatment using the control of maintenance device or rubbering in transparent correction.

(3) Where a doctor is absent, a dental sanitarian shall not provide medical treatment assistance or preventive services independently.

④ Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 of the witness, who worked as an employee in the ○○○○ Department, have been specifically and consistently stated that Defendant 1 provided treatment to patients on the day of transparent correction and no intention from the investigative agency to the court, provided medical treatment to ordinary patients, or provided dental treatment, spawn treatment, spawn removal, and spawn treatment.

⑤ Nonindicted 3 stated that, at the investigative agency, the patient, who was working at the △△△ branch, consulted with the witness, was able to talk about the fact that he received a crypt operation from Defendant 1 at the △△ branch.

④ Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 5 consistently make a statement that they visited Defendant 1 to receive ○○○○○ and a transparent corrective treatment from Defendant 1 for the medical treatment of △△△△ points since the investigative agency, and the content of the statement is specific and clear.

7) Defendant 3, who is a co-defendant, stated that there is little evidence that Defendant 1 had been working in this court that Defendant 3 would perform medical acts, such as disturbance, etc.

④ While ○○○○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△ was operated as a hospital mainly engaged in correction, Nonindicted Party 17, who served as a doctor in charge of correction of the said ○○○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△ branch, stated that they worked at the investigative agency only twice a month. However, there was no evidence regarding the fact that there was no other correctional intent during the said period. Defendant 1 also stated in the investigative agency that “ Nonindicted Party 17 had worked as the head of the correctional office from July 2015 to October 2015. In general, the investigative agency stated that “one representative director who is permanently stationed and one other person who works as a doctor in charge of correction of the said ○○○○○○ and △△△△△△△△△△△ branch worked as the head of the correctional office.”

2. Defendant 3 and his defense counsel asserted that there was no criminal intent to acquire fraud among the criminal facts against the defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing evidence, the medical care benefits claimed against the victim's national health insurance is claimed by the dental hospital that established the victim's name by lending the victim's name, and Defendant 3 provided convenience for the receipt of medical care benefits, such as the provision of passbooks, etc. under the victim's name to Defendant 1, etc., the criminal intent of defraudation is sufficiently recognized.

A. Defendant 1: Articles 87(1)2 and 33(2) of the Medical Service Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the Medical Service Act); Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the Medical Service Act); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Fraud)

B. Defendant 2: Articles 87(1)2 and 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 87(1)2 and 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the Medical Service Act), Articles 347(1) and 30 (Fraud) of the Criminal Act

D. Defendant 4: Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

E. Defendant 5: Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

F. Defendant 6: Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aid and mitigation;

Defendant 2: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 5: latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 1, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The favorable circumstances in ○: Defendant 6 is the primary offender; Defendant 5 is the same as the final judgment in the judgment; and the equity in the case of a judgment at the same time as the final judgment

○ Other consideration of the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Yang Jin-jin

1) A correction ex officio is made inasmuch as it does not seem to substantially disadvantage the defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense even if the correction was made without the amendment to indictment.