beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.21 2015노3968

노인장기요양보험법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is inconsistent with the misunderstanding of facts or the misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant provided money to B who introduced a recipient, the Defendant did not encourage “for-profit purposes” to introduce the recipient to medical care institutions, such as the facts charged.

In other words, the defendant is not operated for the purpose of profit-making, but continues to operate multi-months even when they look at the enemy.

In addition, the defendant did not directly receive the recipient in return for the advance introduction or acceptance fee with B, but did not directly examine the facilities of the medical care center by the recipient and the guardian, and concluded the contract with the defendant.

After introducing a recipient, the Defendant only provided money in good faith by requesting some of his own expenses.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(1) Article 35 (Duties, etc. of Long-Term Care Insurance Act) (6) No person shall introduce, arrange, or induce a beneficiary to a long-term medical care institution by offering or promising to offer money, goods, labor, entertainment, or other benefits for profit, or instigate such act by determining the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

Article 67 (Penalty Provisions) (1) Any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won:

4. Article 35(6) of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act provides that no person who introduces, arranges, or induces a beneficiary, in violation of Article 35(6) shall introduce a beneficiary for profit-making purposes. Article 67(1)4 of the Act provides that a person who encourages the introduction of a beneficiary in violation of Article 67(1)4 shall be punished.

In other words, the facts charged against the defendant is not that the defendant operated the "for profit-making" medical care center, but for profit.