2. Determination is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant did not obtain any other profit in addition to benefits and vehicle support in relation to the operation of the hospital; and (c) there are family members to support the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case, however, has been set aside on the face of the provisions of the Medical Service Act aimed at protecting the health of the people by the proper operation of medical care, and thus, the nature of the crime is not weak, and strict punishment is required, and the defendant has the record of being punished for the same crime, and has been involved in the crime of this case even during the suspension period of execution due to the above punishment, so it is difficult to avoid sentence of sentence against the defendant. While the hospital of this case operated the hospital of this case without permission, the defendant involved in improper medical practices such as performing the radiation company's duties, etc., while the hospital of this case was involved in sentencing, there exist aggravated factors in sentencing, and considering all the factors of sentencing as a whole, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, the background and circumstances before and after the crime

Even if the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, it is difficult to accept the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.