The judgment of the court below against A, D, I, and T shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant D.

A. Defendant A, B, C, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, M, P, Q, Q, R, S, U,V, and W’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Defendants’ common legal reasoning

A) A medical cooperative established and operated each medical institution. This is an act permitted by the Consumer Cooperatives Act and the Consumer Cooperatives Act takes precedence over the Medical Service Act. Therefore, even if there is any defect in the procedures for the establishment of the medical life consultation or the substance of a medical institution is an individual medical institution of the Defendants, it shall not be punished for a violation of the Medical Service Act only under the relevant statutes, such as the Consumer Cooperatives Act.

3) Defendant I and M’s act of establishing and operating a medical institution under the supervision of the competent authorities to establish and operate the medical life cooperative constitutes a justifiable act as provided in Article 20 of the Criminal Act. 4) Since there were doctors with professional qualifications claiming the misapprehension of the legal principles of Defendant K, L, N, and U, there is no punishment.

5) The Defendant did not recognize the illegality of Defendant P’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine. 6) As Defendant R’s leading assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine was established, the instant medical institution at the early stage of its establishment can be seen as having been an individual medical institution of the Defendant. However, this is not a violation of the Medical Service Act, since the next medical compromise could be sufficiently resolved with normal operation.

B. Defendant A, B, C, H, I, J, K, L, M, M, P, Q, R, U, V, V, and W’s assertion of mistake of facts are various grounds for appeal.