의료법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
The imprisonment with prison labor for A shall be four years, and the imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B shall be two years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant D and E did not participate in the establishment of an office hospital, including Defendant D and E, and the Defendants did not share functionally the establishment and operation of the office hospital. As such, the Defendants were acquitted of each violation of the Medical Service Act due to the establishment of a non-qualified medical institution against the said Defendants.
2) The facts of fraud against Defendant D and E are premised on the fact that the above Defendants were joint principals of establishing an unqualified medical institution. Thus, this is also not guilty.
3) Defendant D and E did not engage in the act of issuing false medical records and a written confirmation of hospitalization to the patients, and thus, each of the above Defendants’ aiding and abetting fraud is not guilty.
Even if not innocent, the amount of damage recognized by the court below is inaccurate.
4) The lower court determined that Defendant D worked for a hospital by September 17, 2016.
However, the above Defendant retired from a hospital at the end of July 2016, and thus, the above Defendant was irrelevant to the crime after the above time (excluding the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the introduction of patients).
5) Therefore, the judgment of the court below on this part against Defendant D and E is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s punishment (for Defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment; Defendant B; Defendant D’s imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months; Defendant D’s imprisonment for 2 years and 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment) against the Defendants are excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on Defendant D and E’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The fact that Defendant D violated the Medical Service Act due to the establishment of a hospital in charge of affairs and the fact that Defendant D’s name was changed to V oriental medical hospitals (U oriental medical hospitals around February 2016) from October 1, 2015 to September 17, 2016.
less than 100,00 if the two hospitals are collectively named.