2. The defendant, by recognizing the crime of this case, has shown not only cooperation in the investigation but also his attitude to repent of his mistake.

The defendant is aged 74 years of age, and health conditions are also not good.

The defendant's wife appeals against the defendant.

However, the Defendant: (a) induced patients to undergo health examinations at the hospital operated by the Defendant; (b) paid E money equivalent to 30% of the costs of health examinations; and (c) in such a way, the patients who undergo health examinations at the hospital operated by the Defendant was up to 16,097 at all from November 24, 2014 to September 25, 2017; and (c) there is a very heavy penalty for such crimes.

All the defendants have the past record of criminal punishment over six times, and two times among them are the same criminal records as the crime in this case.

In relation to the instant crime, the amount of the first fine imposed on the Defendant according to the summary order was KRW 2 million, but the lower court imposed only KRW 1.5 million, which is less than the above amount, and it seems that the circumstances favorable to the Defendant were considered.

In addition, even if the defendant's career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, its method and consequence, etc. are added to all the factors of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed in the course of the trial, and it is not determined that the sentencing of the court below is unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable discretion range.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.