[2] The case holding that it is difficult to see that the failure to permit changes in indictment has influenced the conclusion of the judgment

If the defendant, who is a medical doctor, instigated his employee to commit a violation of the Medical Service Act, the defendant will be held responsible for the violation of the Medical Service Act in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Medical Service Act and the general provisions of the Criminal Act.

On the contrary, since the defendant is liable for the violation of the Medical Service Act by his employees, etc. in accordance with Article 70 of the Medical Service Act, which is a joint penal provision, the defendant's assertion that the application of the provisions on accomplices in the general provisions of the Criminal Act is excluded, and that the defendant shall not be punished for the severe punishment in accordance with the purport of the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act, which provides that the defendant shall be punished with a fine provided for in Article 70 of the Medical Service

In addition, the argument that the punishment is too heavy in this case for which imprisonment for less than 10 years is imposed cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence of criminal facts in the facts charged of this case, such as fraud, preparation of a false medical certificate, and the exercise of a false medical certificate. The prosecutor's ground of appeal disputing this point is ultimately the purport of disputing the selection of evidence and the fact-finding, and

Meanwhile, among the facts charged in this case, the court below rejected the prosecutor's application for changes in the indictment. Although the court below permitted changes in the indictment, there seems to be no difference in the evidence relation to the changed facts charged, and there seems to be insufficient evidence to prove the changed facts charged as well as evidence to prove the changed facts charged. Thus, even if the court below did not permit changes in the indictment, it is difficult to view that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1438 delivered on May 14, 199). Accordingly, this part of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

The Prosecutor appealed the guilty portion of the lower judgment, but did not submit the appellate brief regarding this portion within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any indication in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)