의료법위반등
1. The part of the judgment below regarding Defendant A, B, and E shall be reversed.
Defendant
A, Defendant B, who shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and four months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants’ assertion (unfair sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years; imprisonment for three years; imprisonment for two years; imprisonment for two months; imprisonment for one year and four months; imprisonment for ten months; probation for two years; imprisonment with prison labor for community service; imprisonment for 80 hours; imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months; probation for two years; probation for two years; community service for 80 hours; imprisonment with prison labor for two years; imprisonment for two years; probation for three years; probation for three years; social service for 80 hours; and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years; probation for three years; and community service for 80 hours) is unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s assertion (Defendant F) 1 of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles could have anticipated that the principal and interest could not be fully repaid at the time of borrowing money from the victim G, but the “IF M&D” (hereinafter “IF”) is the instant hospital.
(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending legal principles in determining that the Defendant’s act constitutes deception even though it constituted deception. (2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant F is too unreasonable and unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination - The legal nature of “IA”
A. Defendant B and E’s defense counsel stated the following documents (written opinion dated March 2, 2020, the first trial date of this court, April 14, 2020, and the third trial date of April 14, 2020, and the fact-finding of the lower judgment (written opinion dated March 2, 2020, and written summary of oral argument dated April 13, 2020).
(1) The Defendants did not establish the instant hospital with the intent to escape from the Medical Service Act.
The Defendants were duly authorized to establish the I Association (hereinafter “instant I”) based on the Consumer Cooperatives Act (hereinafter “Consumer Cooperatives Act”). Since the instant hospital was established thereafter, the said hospital cannot be deemed to be an “office-general hospital”.
(2) Even if the Defendants were to establish the instant I, the Defendants’ association members.