According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant 1 et al. guilty and acquitted Defendant 2 on the ground that Defendant 2, a herb doctor, was established at the time and place of the indictment without a herb doctor’s license, with the name of a member in the name of Hancheon-do, a Confucian School in the name of Dongcheon-do, and that Defendant 2 assisted Defendant 1’s establishment of Hancheon-gu, a herb doctor. Defendant 2 was equipped with the facilities as alleged in the facts charged, but the establishment report was made by Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 directly performed medical acts. Thus, Defendant 2 et al. operated and operated the above clinic, and Defendant 2 was temporarily paid only the above salary at the time of opening and reporting the establishment, even if Defendant 2 received only the above salary, it should be deemed that Defendant 2 was established.

However, according to Article 30 (2) of the Medical Service Act, a medical doctor, dentist, oriental medical doctor, midwifery clinic, and a certain corporation or government-invested institution, which can establish a medical institution, shall be regulated by the Medical Service Act, and shall not establish a medical institution. The purport of the above provision is to prohibit any person other than a medical person, a corporation, or a government-invested institution as defined in the same paragraph from establishing a medical institution. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the act of a medical person who has invested necessary funds in the general public without the qualification of medical personnel and employs qualified medical personnel and reports the establishment of a medical institution in the name of the medical institution is the most formal establishment of a medical institution, and it does not constitute a violation of Article 30 (2) of the Medical Service Act, since a person who is not a medical person has established a medical institution, and the report on the establishment of a medical institution has become a medical person under the name of a medical person or has directly

Therefore, if the details and circumstances of the establishment of Korea Won-si, which was reported under Defendant 2’s name, are the same as the original adjudication, the establishment of the Korea Institute shall be deemed to violate Article 30(2) of the Medical Service Act. Therefore, there is a different opinion from the judgment below that rendered a verdict of innocence for the same reason, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 30(2) of the Medical Service Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)