특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
B In fines of 10,00,000, Defendant C.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant BD, B’s sentence sentenced to Defendant BD and B (Defendant BD: imprisonment of two years, Defendant B’s imprisonment of eight years, and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant C 1's mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle as to Nwon's crime No. 1 of the original judgment
A. (1) The name of the representative of a non-medical person was changed to Defendant C, and the defendant performed medical treatment while working for the above Nwon. However, this is merely a case where the defendant was employed by Defendant BD for the purpose of wages and provided medical treatment, and even though there was no conspiracy or collusion in the establishment and operation of the Defendant BD or D medical institution, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Medical Service Act under Article 87 (1) 2 of the Medical Service Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant C of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Although there are no circumstances to consider Defendant BD’s mistake, Defendant BD’s perception of all of the crimes of this case, and statement that Defendant BD is divided in depth, and Defendant BD has no criminal history, each of the crimes of this case committed by Defendant BD is established and operated in collusion with Defendant B, C, and Co-Defendant D, etc. who cannot establish a medical institution. Meanwhile, each of the crimes of this case committed by Defendant BD, in collusion with Defendant B, C, and the court below’s decision, established and operated a medical institution for the same reasons as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the medical institution operated by Defendant BD pretends that it is a normal medical institution, or that the medical institution operated by Defendant BD is a medical institution