Defendant 1 and nine others

Kim Yong-young (prosecution) and inner jurisdiction (trial)

Attorneys Yellow-ray et al. and six others

Defendant 1 with respect to the crime Nos. 1 and 2 as set forth in the annexed Table (18), he shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for 6 months, by imprisonment for 3 years, by imprisonment for 5 years, by imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months, by imprisonment for 2 years, by imprisonment for 3 years, by Defendant 2, by imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months, by imprisonment for 3 years and 7 years, by imprisonment for 1 year, by 4, 6, and 10, by imprisonment for 8 months, by 3 million won and by fine for 8 months and 3 million won, and by imprisonment for 9 months, respectively.

When Defendant 8 fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

However, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for two years for Defendant 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for Defendant 9, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for one year shall be suspended.

To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine against Defendant 8.

이 사건 공소사실 중 피고인 5의 공소외 1 사단법인 ◎◎◎◎◎한의원에 대한 의료법위반, 사기의 점은 각 무죄.

[2013 Highest 1712]

Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Medical Service Act at the Seoul Western District Court on June 10, 2010, and the said judgment was finalized on June 10, 201. On May 10, 2012, Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment with prison labor for a reason of fraud, etc. at the Jung-gu District Court on May 18, 2012 and the said judgment was finalized on May 18, 2012. On April 4, 2013, Defendant 1 (Defendant 1) was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for a crime of forging public documents at the Jung-gu District Court on April 12, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive on April 12, 2013.

On May 13, 201, Defendant 2 (Defendant 2 of the judgment of the appellate court) was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment with prison labor for six months in the Seoul Western District Court for fraud, etc. on May 21, 201, and the above judgment was finalized on May 21, 201. On July 5, 2013, the Incheon District Court sentenced a suspended sentence of one year for a total of six months in imprisonment with prison labor for fraud at the Incheon District Court, which became final and conclusive on July 13, 2013.

1. The process of establishing Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1 and replacing its executives

around August 15, 2002, the Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1 was established for the purpose of the business of respect and peace in the East Asia and was permitted to establish an incorporated association by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade on April 19, 2004. On January 2, 2008, Article 4(10) of the articles of incorporation of a multicultural society was added to the business of supporting exchanges between the elderly and migrants and the establishment of medical institutions, and registered as a non-profit private organization on July 4, 2008.

Meanwhile, from May 25, 2009 to March 28, 2011, Defendant 5 (Defendant 4 of the judgment of appeal) and Nonindicted 8 were in office as a director with the power of representation of the said association. From March 28, 2011 to March 28, 201, Defendant 1 is in office as a director with the power of representation.

2. Defendant 3 (Defendant 3 of the judgment of the court of appeal): The relation to the won at the time when the meeting is held.

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

No person may establish a medical institution, other than a doctor, herb doctor, dentist, midwife, State, local government, medical corporation, non-profit corporation or quasi-governmental institution under the Civil Act and Special Act (hereinafter referred to as "doctor, etc.").

피고인은 2010. 5. 6.경 인천 계양구 (주소 4 생략) ▷▷프라자 2층에서 공소외 1 사단법인의 인천지부 형태로 ◇◇◇한의원을 개설하기 위하여 피고인 5, 공소외 8은 공소외 1 사단법인의 명의를 빌려주고, 피고인은 명의대여료 명목으로 매월 200만원을 피고인 5, 공소외 8에게 지급하기로 합의하였다.

피고인은 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2010. 5. 6.경 인천 계양구 (주소 4 생략) ▷▷프라자 2층에서 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비하고, 한의사 공소외 9, 10을 고용한 후 ‘공소외 1 사단법인 ◇◇◇한의원’이라는 명칭으로 의료기관을 개설하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant established a medical institution in collusion with Defendant 5 and Nonindicted 8 even though they did not intend to do so.

(b) Fraud;

In case where a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has employed a doctor to perform medical practice, he may not claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

The Defendant, from May 6, 2010 to April 30, 2011, operated a meeting of the members at the time of having the place of residence close from May 6, 2010 to April 30, 201, had an oriental medical doctor Nonindicted 9, 10 treat patients, and requested the Review and Assessment Service to examine the medical care benefit cost statement by submitting it to the Review and Assessment Service. Upon receipt of notice of the result of the review, the Defendant received KRW 95,819,700 in total for 11 months under the name of the medical care benefit cost, as shown in the attached crime list

3. Defendant 1: Establishment of an office hall directly operated by Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1

피고인은 공소외 11 사단법인의 명의를 빌려 ♤♤의원 및 ◈◈◈의원을 운영한 의료법위반 사건에 대하여 2010. 6. 10. 징역 1년에 집행유예 2년을 선고받고, 2011. 2. 8. 항소기각 판결을 선고(2011. 6. 10. 상고심 확정)받은 후 ♤♤의원 및 ◈◈◈의원을 계속하여 운영할 방법을 모색하던 중 공소외 1 사단법인을 인수하여 2011. 3. 28. 대표권이 있는 이사로 취임한 후 위 병원 시설들을 그대로 유지한 채 공소외 1 사단법인 명의로 의료기관을 개설하기로 마음먹었다.

A. Regarding Korea's ○○○○○

(1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

피고인은 2011. 4. 6. 의정부시 (주소 5 생략)에서 의사, 간호사 등 직원을 고용하고, 진료실 및 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 ‘공소외 1 사단법인 코리아○○의원’(구 ◈◈◈의원)이라는 명칭으로 의료기관을 개설하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

(2) Fraud

From April 6, 2011 to May 31, 2013, the Defendant, as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph (1), had a salary doctor treat patients while operating the Korea Medical Care Benefit Center from around April 6, 2011 to May 31, 2013, requested an examination by submitting a statement of medical care benefit cost to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Upon receipt of notice of the result of the examination, the Defendant received KRW 74,061,112 in total for 26 months from the victim of the National Health Insurance Corporation who believed it to be true, as shown in the list

B. Concerning the Gyeonggi Northern ○○○○○

(1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

피고인은 2011. 4. 11. 경기 연천군 (주소 6 생략)에서 의사, 간호사 등 직원을 고용하고, 진료실 및 물리치료실 등을 구비한 후 ‘공소외 1 사단법인 경기북부○○의원’(구 ♤♤의원)이라는 명칭으로 의료기관을 개설하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

(2) Fraud

From April 11, 201 to May 31, 2013, the Defendant, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1), operated the Gyeonggi Northern District ○○○○○○○ Council from around April 11, 2011 to around May 31, 201, requested the Review and Assessment Service to submit a statement of medical care benefit costs to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for review, and received payment of KRW 572,029,090 in total for 26 months as medical care benefit costs, as shown in the list of crimes (3) by the victim who believed to be true.

C. Regarding the members of Korea's ○○ Korea

(1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

On June 17, 2011, the Defendant employed medical doctors, nurses, and provided a physical treatment room, and established a medical institution under the name of “Nonindicted 1 Korea Medical Association Korea Medical Center”.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

(2) Fraud

The Defendant, from June 17, 201 to February 2012, operated the Korea Medical Care Center (hereinafter “Korea Medical Care Center”) from around February 17, 2011 to around February 2012, requested the Review and Assessment Service to review the Medical Care Benefit Statement by submitting it to the Review and Assessment Service. Upon receipt of notice of the result of the review, the Defendant received KRW 42,654,920, total amount of KRW 920 for nine months under the name of medical care Benefit Table (4), as shown in the separate list of crimes (4).

4. Joint criminal conduct by Defendants 2 and 1: Related to the members at the time of the shop shop;

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

Defendant 2, as stated in paragraph (2) around May 201, acquired a source of the meeting at the place of the auction in which Defendant 3 had operated, at KRW 210 million,00,000,000 per month, and paid to Defendant 1 a monthly amount of KRW 2 million. Defendant 1 agreed to lend the name of Defendant 2 so that Defendant 2 may continue to operate the meeting of the place of the auction in the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1.

피고인 2는 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2011. 5.경 인천 계양구 (주소 4 생략) ▷▷프라자 2층에서 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비하고, 한의사 공소외 10, 12를 고용하여 의료기관을 개설하였다.

As a result, the Defendants established a medical institution even though they did not act in collusion.

(b) Fraud;

Defendant 2, from May 201 to November 30, 2011, in operating a meeting of the members of the meeting place where the place of the sale of goods is permitted from May 30, 201 to November 30, 2011, had Nonindicted 10 and 12 treat patients, and requested to review the statement of the medical care benefit cost to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service by submitting it to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Upon receipt of notice of the result of the review, Defendant 2 received KRW 60,462,140 for seven months in total as the medical care benefit cost indicated in

5. Joint criminal conduct by Defendants 2 and 4

가. ◐◐◐◐ 한의원 관련

(1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

Defendant 2, as stated in paragraph 4, was unable to pay the fees for the name of the hospital because the operation of the hospital is not well-being while operating the members at the time of the non-indicted 1’s meeting in the name of the non-indicted 1’s association, Defendant 2 was in charge of operating the hospital by filing a report on the opening of the hospital in the name of the non-indicted 4, and Defendant 4

피고인들은 2012. 5. 29.경 인천 계양구 (주소 4 생략) ▷▷프라자 2층에서 진료실, 물리치료실을 구비하고, 피고인 4 명의로 ‘◐◐◐◐ 한의원’이라는 명칭으로 의료기관을 개설하였다.

As a result, the Defendants established a medical institution even though they did not act in collusion.

(2) Fraud

피고인들은 공모하여 2012. 5. 29.경부터 2013. 3. 31.까지 위 (1)항과 같이 ◐◐◐◐ 한의원을 운영하면서 피고인 4는 환자를 진료하고, 피고인 2는 건강보험심사평가원에 요양급여비용명세서를 제출하여 심사를 의뢰하고, 그 심사결과를 통보받아 이를 진실로 믿은 피해자 국민건강보험공단으로부터 별지 범죄일람표(6) 기재와 같이 요양급여비 명목으로 10개월 동안 합계 101,611,260원을 지급받았다.

나. ◐◐◐◐ 한방병원 관련

피고인 2는 위 5의 가.항과 같이 ◐◐◐◐ 한의원을 운영하던 중 병원급 의료기관이 의원급 의료기관보다 의료수가가 높고, 의료보호 환자를 입원시킬 수 있으며, 산업재해 지정병원이 될 수 있기 때문에 더 많은 수익을 낼 수 있을 것으로 기대하고 피고인 4 명의로 병원급 의료기관을 개설하기로 마음먹고, 병원급 의료기관 개설 요건으로 의사 2명, 간호사 6명이 필요하게 되자 한의사 공소외 13을 추가로 고용하고, 공소외 14를 통하여 공소외 15로부터 간호사 6명의 면허증을 빌렸다.

피고인 2는 2013. 4. 11. 인천 계양구 (주소 4 생략) ▷▷프라자 2층에서 진료실, 물리치료실을 구비하고, 피고인 4 명의로 ‘◐◐◐◐ 한방병원’이라는 명칭으로 의료기관을 개설하였다.

As a result, the Defendants established a medical institution even though they did not act in collusion.

[2013 Highest 2110]

Defendant 5 is the actual operator of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1.

On April 19, 2004, the Defendant obtained the establishment permission of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1 for the purpose of promoting friendship in the East Asia region from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and was registered as a director from May 25, 2009 to May 25, 2009, the representative director from May 25, 2009 to March 28, 201, and the director from May 25, 201 to the date.

While seeking ways to secure funds for the operation of the above incorporated association, the Defendant sought advice from Nonindicted 2 that the non-profit corporation can establish a medical institution upon obtaining permission from the competent authorities for the establishment and operation of the medical institution, and added “the establishment of a medical institution” to the purpose of the articles of incorporation on January 2, 2008, and subsequently, intended to receive money under the name of the incorporated association by lending the name of the incorporated association to the person who wants to establish and operate the medical institution.

1. Concerning the establishment of the ○○○ Medical Center as Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

No person may establish a medical institution, other than a doctor, herb doctor, dentist, midwife, State, local government, medical corporation, non-profit corporation or quasi-governmental institution under the Civil Act and Special Act (hereinafter referred to as "doctor, etc.").

The Defendant lent the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1 to Nonindicted 2 so that it can establish a medical institution, and Nonindicted 2 paid KRW 1 million each month under the name name lending fee.

Around January 18, 2008, Non-Indicted 2 established a medical institution under the name of “the co-defendant 5 of the judgment of the court of appeal (Defendant 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance) and “the ○○○○○, an incorporated association of the court of first instance” after employing the co-defendant 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance and its employees.”

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted Party 2 to establish a medical institution.

(b) Fraud;

In case where a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has employed a doctor to perform medical practice, he may not claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

As above, the Defendant lent the name of the incorporated association to Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 2, from January 18, 2008 to January 12, 2010, from January 12, 2010 to January 12, 2010, at the place described in paragraph (a) of the above 1-A, requested the Review and Assessment Service to review the medical care benefit cost statement after having an oriental medical doctor employ the co-defendant, Nonindicted 3, and Defendant 8 (Defendant 7 of the judgment of appeal judgment) and submitting it to the Review and Assessment Service. Upon receiving the notice of the result of the review, the Defendant was paid KRW 227,852,230 as medical care benefit cost by the victim of the National Health

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 2, the Defendant received a total of KRW 227,852,230 from the National Health Insurance Corporation of the Victim.

2. Concerning the male ○○○○○○.

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

No person, other than a doctor, etc., may establish a medical institution.

The Defendant lent the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1 to Nonindicted 2 so that the Defendant can establish a medical institution, and Nonindicted 2 paid KRW 1 million each month as the name lending fee.

Around April 18, 2008, Non-Indicted 2 established a medical institution under the name of “Seoul Metropolitan Government Vice-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted Party 2 to establish a medical institution.

(b) Fraud;

In case where a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has employed a doctor to perform medical practice, he may not claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

As above, the Defendant lent the name of the incorporated association to Nonindicted 2, from June 2008 to February 2, 201, Nonindicted 2, from June 2008 to February 1, 201, requested the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to submit a statement of health care benefit to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to examine the patient after employing Nonindicted 17, 18, and 19, etc. at the places indicated in the above 2-A. The Defendant received KRW 187,503,541 in total under the name of the health care benefit fee as shown in the separate crime list (8) from the victim who believed the result of the review.

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 2, the Defendant received a total of KRW 187,503,541 from the National Health Insurance Corporation.

3. Concerning ○○○ Council members:

(a) Direct management method:

(1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

In collusion with the defendant 7, the defendant prepared a hospital facility with the fund of the defendant, and the defendant 7 decided to operate the hospital in such a way that the defendant pays 12 million won per month to the defendant.

On September 19, 2008, the Defendant provided a medical care room, a water treatment room, etc. on the second floor of the Gangseo-gu Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) in Gangseo-gu, Seoul. On September 19, 2008, the Defendant employed co-defendants of the first instance trial and employees, and established a medical institution under the name of “○○○

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Defendant 7 to establish a medical institution.

(2) Fraud

In case where a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has employed a doctor to perform medical practice, he may not claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

From September 19, 2008 to December 2, 2009, the Defendant: (a) had an oriental medical doctor employed by Co-Defendant 1, Defendant 8, and Nonindicted 20, etc. in the places indicated in the above 3-A(1) to treat patients; (b) requested the Review and Assessment Service to submit a statement of medical care benefit costs to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for review; and (c) received a total of KRW 196,984,950 as medical care benefit costs as indicated in the annexed crime list (9) from the victim who is believed to be true.

B. Direct management and the name lending to Defendant 9

(1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

(A) From January 2010 to April 30, 2010, the Defendant, who was not a doctor, etc., opened and operated the ○○○○○○ Won at the place indicated in the above 3-A (1).

(B) Defendant 9 received KRW 130 million from Defendant 9, and transferred the above hospital facilities, and Defendant 9 lent the name of an incorporated association to enable Defendant 9 to continue to operate the hospital, and Defendant 9 paid KRW 1.5 million per month under the name of the name of the association.

Defendant 9 established and operated the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the place indicated in the above 3-A(1) from May 1, 201 to May 1, 201 in accordance with the said public offering.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Defendant 9 to establish a medical institution as a person who is not a doctor.

(2) Fraud

In case where a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has employed a doctor to perform medical practice, he may not claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

(A) On January 2010, from around April 30, 201 to around April 30, 2010, the Defendant provided treatment to the patient by employing the doctor at the place specified in the above 3-A. (1), and requested review to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service by submitting a statement of health care benefit costs to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Upon receiving the notice of the result of the review, the Defendant received KRW 19,432,430, total amount as the health benefit cost as indicated in the annexed list of crimes (10-1) from the

(B) As above, the Defendant lent the name of an incorporated association to Defendant 9. From May 1, 201 to May 1, 201, Defendant 9: (a) had an oriental medical doctor employed Nonindicted 10, 21, and 22 at the place indicated in the above 3-A-A-B (1) from around May 1, 201 to around May 201; (b) requested the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to submit a statement of health care benefit costs to review the medical care benefit cost to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; and (b) received a notice of the result of the review from the victim who believed it as true and paid KRW 87,417,560 in total

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant 9, the Defendant received a total of KRW 87,417,560 from the National Health Insurance Corporation.

4. Concerning the members of the district court at issue, which was the non-indicted 1 corporation

(a) Direct management methods:

(1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

피고인은 2009. 5. 6. 인천 계양구 (주소 4 생략) ▷▷프라자 2층에서 동생인 공소외 6으로부터 투자받은 3억 6,000만원으로 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비하고, 한의사 공소외 23, 24 및 직원들을 고용한 후 ‘공소외 1 사단법인 ◇◇◇한의원’이라는 명칭으로 의료기관을 개설하였다.

(2) Fraud

In case where a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has employed a doctor to perform medical practice, he may not claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

From May 6, 2009 to May 6, 2010, the Defendant: (a) hired herb doctor Nonindicted 9, 10, etc. at the places indicated in the above 4-A(1) Item (i); (b) requested the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to review the specifications of health care benefit; (c) submitted them to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; and (d) received payment of KRW 83,397,020 in total under the name of health care benefit expenses as shown in the list of crimes (11) as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (1) from

B. Lending name to Defendant 3

(1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

The Defendant received KRW 100 million from Defendant 3 while running a meeting at the place of residence close, as set forth in the above 4-A (A) and transferred the facilities of the above hospital, so that Defendant 3 may continue to operate the hospital under the name of the incorporated association, and Defendant 3 shall pay KRW 2 million per month under the name of the name of the name of the association.

Defendant 3, according to the above public offering from May 6, 2010 to April 30, 201, set up and operated a meeting meeting of the head of the place where the meeting was held at the time set forth in the above 4-A.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Defendant 3 to establish a medical institution.

(2) Fraud

In case where a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has employed a doctor to perform medical practice, he may not claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

As above, the Defendant lent the name of an incorporated association to Defendant 3, and Defendant 3, from May 6, 201 to April 30, 201, from May 30, 201 to April 30, 201, requested the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to submit the statement of health care benefit costs to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for review after having an oriental medical doctor employed Nonindicted 9, 10, etc. at the places indicated in the above 4-B(1). Upon receipt of notice of the result of the review, the Defendant was paid KRW 95,819,700 in total for the name of health care benefit expenses as shown in the list of crimes

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant 3, the Defendant received a total sum of KRW 95,819,700 from the National Health Insurance Corporation.

【2013 Highest 2233】

1. Defendant 6 (Defendant 6 of the judgment of appeal): Establishment of ○○○, a non-indicted 1 incorporated association

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

No person may establish a medical institution, other than a doctor, herb doctor, dentist, midwife, State, local government, medical corporation, non-profit corporation or quasi-governmental institution under the Civil Act and Special Act (hereinafter referred to as "doctor, etc.").

Defendant 5, a representative director of Nonindicted Incorporated Association, lent the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1 so that it can establish a medical institution to Co-Defendant 1, an oriental medical doctor, and Co-Defendant 5, while operating a medical institution, shall pay 100-1.5 million won per month to Defendant 5. Defendant 6 was recruited to serve as the head of the hospital established by Co-Defendant 1, who was appointed as the head of the Seo-gu Branch of Gwangju Metropolitan City, of Nonindicted Incorporated Incorporated Association 1, and the head of the hospital established by

On January 18, 2008, Co-Defendant 6 and Co-Defendant 1 established a medical institution under the name of “Nonindicted 1, an incorporated association of the Republic of Korea,” with the medical room, water treatment room, etc. as well as the name of “Nonindicted 1, an incorporated association.”

Accordingly, Defendant 6, in collusion with Co-Defendant 5 of the first instance trial and Defendant 5, established a medical institution from January 18, 2008 to January 12, 2010.

(b) Fraud;

No person other than a medical institution established under the Medical Service Act may claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

From January 18, 2008 to January 12, 2010, Co-Defendant 6 and Co-Defendant 1-A received KRW 227,852,230,00 in total as medical care benefit expenses for 22 months from the victim of the National Health Insurance Corporation who is believed to be true upon receiving notice of the result of the examination from Co-Defendant 6 and Co-Defendant 6 and Co-Defendant 1-A from January 18, 2008 to Co-Defendant 8 and Non-Party 3 submitted the statement of medical care benefit expenses to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service.

As a result, Defendant 6 was paid KRW 227,852,230 in collusion with Co-Defendant 5 and Defendant 5 by the National Health Insurance Corporation.

2. Defendant 8: Employment of ○○○, an incorporated association 1.

On February 20, 2009, the Defendant knew that Co-Defendant 1 and Defendant 6 lent the name of Non-Party 1’s incorporated association in Seo-gu, Gwangju ( Address 1 omitted) and opened a medical institution, and was employed to receive 4 million won per month and provide medical treatment.

Accordingly, the Defendant was employed by a person who is not able to establish a medical institution from February 20, 2009 to June 1, 2009 and provided medical services.

3. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant 7 and 8: The establishment of “○○○ Council member”

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

No person, other than a doctor, etc., may establish a medical institution.

Defendant 5, the representative director of Nonindicted Corporation 1, prepared a hospital facility, such as a clinic, and lent the name of Nonindicted Corporation 1 to the Defendants and co-defendant 1 so that they can establish a medical institution, and the Defendants and co-defendant 1 conspired to pay KRW 12 million monthly to Defendant 5 for the name of the name card and the monthly rent of the building.

On September 19, 2008, the Defendants and co-defendants of the first instance court established a medical institution under the name of “○○○○ Medical Center” after employing employees in the second floor of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 2 omitted) building.

Accordingly, the Defendants, in collusion with Co-Defendant 5 of the first instance trial and Defendant 5, established a medical institution from September 19, 2008 to January 5, 2010 (the first instance trial co-defendant, from September 19, 2008 to June 1, 2009, and Defendant 8 from June 2, 2009 to November 30, 2009).

(b) Fraud;

No person other than a medical institution established under the Medical Service Act may claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

From September 19, 2008 to December 31, 2009, Co-defendant 3-A, after diagnosing and treating patients at the places specified in the above 3-A, the Defendants and Co-defendant 1 submitted the statement of medical care benefit costs to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to request review. Upon receiving notification of the result of examination, the Defendants and Co-defendant 1 received total of KRW 196,984,950 as medical care benefit costs for 16 months from the victim's National Health Insurance Corporation (15) who believed that it is true.

Accordingly, in collusion with Co-Defendant 5 of the first instance trial and Defendant 5, the Defendants received the sum of 196,984,950 won from the National Health Insurance Corporation (the Co-Defendant 1 was 15,574,840 won from September 19, 2008 to May 30, 2009, and Defendant 8 was 74,398,580 won from June 2, 2009 to November 30, 2009).

4. Defendant 9: Establishment of an oriental medical clinic.

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

No person, other than a doctor, etc., may establish a medical institution.

Defendant 5, who was the former representative director of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1, suspended the operation of the “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” and Defendant 7 agreed to transfer the hospital facilities to the Defendant to the name of KRW 135 million in order to continue to use the hospital name in the name of the Defendant, and to pay KRW 1.5 million in each month

On May 1, 2010, the Defendant established a medical institution on May 1, 2010, with the name of “○○○○ Medical Center” after employing the employees, with the examination rooms and water treatment rooms on the second floor of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 2 omitted) building.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Defendant 5 and 1, established a medical institution from May 1, 201 to July 1, 201 (from May 1, 2010 to March 28, 201, Defendant 1 and public invitation from March 29, 201 to July 1, 201).

(b) Fraud;

No person other than a medical institution established under the Medical Service Act may claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

From May 1, 2010 to May 31, 201, the Defendant: (a) provided patients with herb doctors employed at the places indicated in the foregoing paragraph 4-A; and (b) requested review by submitting a statement of medical care benefit cost to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; and (c) received payment of KRW 87,417,560 in total as medical care benefit cost for 13 months from the date of the victim’s crime list (16), which is believed to be true.

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant 5 and 1, the Defendant received a total of KRW 87,417,560 from the National Health Insurance Corporation.

5. 피고인 10(항소심판결의 피고인 8) : 공소외 1 사단법인 ◁◁◁◁ ◁◁◁◁◁ 의원 개설

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

No person, other than a doctor, etc., may establish a medical institution.

Defendant 5, the representative director of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1, lent the name of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1 to enable the Defendant to establish a medical institution, and the Defendant conspired to pay one million won per month to Defendant 5 under the name of the name of the name of the Defendant.

피고인은 위와 같은 공모에 따라 2008. 4. 21. 서울 구로구 (주소 7 생략) 건물 5층에서 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비하고, 직원들을 고용한 후 ‘공소외 1 사단법인 ◁◁◁◁ ◁◁◁◁◁의원’이라는 명칭으로 의료기관을 개설하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Defendant 5 to establish a medical institution from April 21, 2008 to May 31, 2010.

(b) Fraud;

No person other than a medical institution established under the Medical Service Act may claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

From June 1, 2008 to May 31, 2010, the Defendant: (a) provided a patient with an employment of doctor at the place specified in the above 5-A (A); (b) submitted a statement of medical care benefit costs to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to request review; and (c) received a total of KRW 173,238,201 as medical care benefit costs for 23 months, as shown in the attached list of crimes (17) from the victim who is believed to be true.

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant 5, the Defendant received a total of KRW 173,238,201 from the National Health Insurance Corporation.

[2013 Highest 1712]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2, 3, and 4;

1. Each of the defendants 2 and 3's legal statements;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspects by the prosecution against the defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 27, and 15

1. Each prosecutorial statement concerning Nonindicted 25 and 26

1. The articles of incorporation of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1

1. Full certificate of registered matters;

1. Current status of examination and decision of each medical care benefit cost;

1. The medical institution establishment report ledger;

1. The transfer and takeover contract;

1. A certificate of reporting the establishment of each medical institution and a license;

1. Details of passbook transactions;

1. A memorandum of understanding;

1. Each written confirmation;

1. Previous convictions: Each criminal record, investigation report (Attachment to judgments relating to insurance frauds by defendants 2), investigation report (Attachment to judgments, etc. violating the Medical Service Act by defendants 1), and written judgments;

[2013 Highest 2110, 2233]

1. Each legal statement of Co-defendant of the first instance court and the defendant 6;

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 5, co-defendant 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 3 in the first instance trial;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspects by the prosecution against the defendant 5, co-defendant 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 3 in the first instance trial;

1. The articles of incorporation of Nonindicted Incorporated Association 1

1. A memorandum of understanding;

1. Summary order;

1. Each medical institution report on establishment;

1. Current status of examination and decision of each medical care benefit cost;

1. The medical institution establishment report ledger;

1. A oral contract or contract;

1. An agreement;

1. Receipts:

1. Certificate of completion of report;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 8: Article 87(1)2, Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of a medical institution by an unqualified person, choice of imprisonment), Article 90 of the Medical Service Act (the act of providing medical services under employment by an unqualified person), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive fraud, and choice of imprisonment)

The remaining Defendants: Articles 87(1)2 and 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of a medical institution by an unqualified person, choice of imprisonment), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive fraud, and choice of imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and 2: The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act [Attachment 18 for Defendant 1]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 8: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

The remaining Defendants: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 8: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 8: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The assertion;

A. Joint assertion by the Defendants

The non-indicted 1 incorporated association (hereinafter “the instant corporation”) is a non-profit corporation that can establish a medical institution under the Medical Service Act. Each of the instant council members and Han Council members, who is a medical institution lawfully established by the instant corporation, is not a medical institution that has established the name of the instant corporation, and is not a doctor, etc., but a medical institution that has established only the name of the instant corporation. Therefore, the Defendants did not

B. Defendant 8’s assertion

Co-defendants in the first instance trial and Defendant 6 did not know that they opened ○○○○ Won by lending the name of the juristic person in the instant case and only worked under simple employment in ○○○ Won.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, the purpose of which is to ensure the proper operation of medical care and to protect and promote national health, provides for the qualification requirements for the founders of medical institutions, and Article 87(1) of the same Act provides for the punishment of those who violate the above provision. The legislative intent of the above provision is to establish a sound medical order and prevent risks to national health that may arise in the event that a medical institution is established for the purpose of establishing a medical institution for profit-making by strictly limiting the qualification for establishing medical institutions to medical professionals or to those who have a public nature (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7245, Feb. 25, 2005, etc.). The act of establishing a medical institution prohibited by the above provision means that a non-medical person processes such matters as the recruitment and management of facilities and human resources of the medical institution, the establishment report, the implementation of medical services, the raising of necessary funds, and the ownership of the operational performance (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7388, Nov. 13, 2008).

(b)specific review;

(1) Defendant 1’s members of Korea Korea’s ○○○, Gyeonggi Northern Branch ○○○, Korea’s Council members

이 법원이 적법하게 채택한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인은 공소외 11 사단법인의 명의를 빌려 ♤♤의원, ◈◈◈의원을 운영하다 사무장병원이라는 이유로 유죄판결을 받게 되자, 이를 계속하여 운영할 방법을 모색하던 중 공소외 5로부터 이 사건 법인의 이사장으로 취임하여 의원을 운영하라는 말을 듣고 이 사건 법인을 인수하게 된 점, ② 피고인은 2011. 2.경 피고인 5와 사이에 당시 이 사건 법인의 부채 2억원을 해결하기 위하여 피고인이 법인 통장에 2억원을 입금하기로 하고 이 사건 법인의 대표권 있는 이사 지위를 이전받기로 하였고, 그 후 약 1억 7,000만원을 입금한 점, ③ 피고인은 2011. 3. 31.경 피고인 5와 사이에 남부○○의원의 각종 체불에 대하여 피고인 5가 책임지기로 하고, 피고인 5가 이를 해결하면 피고인이 피고인 5가 주관하는 단체활동에 대하여 3,000만원을 기부한다는 약정을 한 점, ④ 피고인은 이 사건 법인의 대표권 있는 이사가 된 이후에도 피고인 5 또는 피고인 3이 개인적으로 투자, 운영한 ◇◇◇한의원에 대하여는 별다른 조치를 취하지 못한 점, ⑤ 피고인은 기존에 자신이 운영하던 ♤♤의원, ◈◈◈의원과 같은 장소에서 위 의원 기자재 등을 그대로 인수하여 코리아○○의원(◈◈◈의원), 경기북부○○의원(♤♤의원)을 각 개설하였고, 코리아○○한의원은 코리아○○의원 내에 개설한 점, ⑥ 피고인은 검찰에서 법인 명의로 의원을 운영하는 것이 이 사건 법인을 인수하게 된 주된 목적이라고 진술한 점, ⑦ 의료법에서 비영리법인이 예외적으로 의료기관을 개설할 수 있도록 한 것은 그것이 비영리법인이어서 영리추구로 인한 폐단이 발생할 가능성이 적고 비영리법인의 사업목적을 제고하기 위한 경우에 그 정당성이 인정된다 할 것인데, 비의료인이 처음부터 위와 같은 입법취지와 상관없이 자신의 개인 의료기관을 운영할 목적으로 의료기관을 개설하였다면 이러한 비영리법인 의료기관은 이미 형해화되어 의료법에 의해 보호받을 수 없는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 1이 이 사건 법인의 명의를 빌려 위 각 의원 및 한의원을 개설한 행위는 의료법 입법취지와 상관없이 자신의 개인 의료기관을 운영할 목적으로 의료인이 아니면서 의료기관을 개설한 것이라고 봄이 상당하다.

(2) The plaintiff 1's meeting of the court below's meeting

이 법원이 적법하게 채택한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피고인 2는 2011. 5.경 피고인 3과 사이에 피고인 3이 이 사건 법인의 인천 지부장으로서 실제 운영하던 ◇◇◇한의원에 관하여 양도대금 2억 1,000만원을 지급하고 인수하기로 약정한 점, ② 피고인 2는 그 무렵 피고인 3과 함께 피고인을 만나 공동지부장 임명이 가능한지 문의하였고, 피고인은 그 자리에서 피고인 5가 대표권 있는 이사로 있을 때와 동일하게 법인 명의 사용 대가로 매월 200만원을 지급하라고 말한 점, ③ 피고인 3은 2011. 5. 25. 이 사건 법인의 이사(인천 지부장)에서 퇴임하고 같은 날 공소외 5가 이사(인천 지부장)로 취임한 점, ④ 피고인은 검찰에서 피고인 3이 피고인 2를 데리고 와 피고인 2로부터 ◇◇◇한의원에 관하여 투자받았다고 알려 이를 알게 되었고, 피고인 3이 피고인 2를 법인 이사로 취임시킬 것을 제안하였으나 거절하였다고 진술하는 한편, 공소외 5가 피고인 3 후임으로 법인 이사가 된 부분에 관하여 자신의 의사로 공소외 5를 이사로 등재시킨 것이라고 진술하였다가 공소외 5가 인천 지부장 역할을 수행하는 것을 몰랐다고 진술하는 등 그 진술에 일관성이 없는 점, ⑤ 피고인 2는 지부장인 피고인 3이나 공소외 5를 통해 형식적으로는 이 사건 법인에 보고하는 등의 형태를 취하였으나, 한의사 등을 고용하고 수익금을 자체 판단하에 사용하는 등 실질적으로 병원을 운영하였던 점, ⑥ 이 사건 법인에서는 ◇◇◇한의원에 공소외 4 이사를 보내 병원 운영 상황을 확인하고 보고받기도 한 점, ⑦ 피고인은 2011. 11. 24. 피고인 3으로부터 이 사건 법인에 대한 월 회비 미납분 1,000만원에 대한 확인서를 받으면서 피고인 2를 보증인으로 하여 서명, 날인받은 점, ⑧ 피고인 2는 ◇◇◇한의원에 관하여 2012. 5. 29. 한의사인 피고인 4 명의로 ‘◐◐◐◐ 한의원’ 개설신고를 하고 이 사건 법인과의 관계를 단절하였는데, 그러한 과정에서 피고인이 관여한 바는 전혀 없는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 1은 피고인 2가 피고인 3으로부터 ◇◇◇한의원을 인수하여 이 사건 법인의 명의를 빌려 개인적으로 한의원을 개설, 운영한다는 사실을 알고 있으면서 피고인 2가 계속 ◇◇◇한의원을 운영할 수 있도록 공모하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

(3) 피고인 5의 ○○한의원(광주), 남부○○의원, ◁◁◁◁◁◁◁◁◁(피고인 10 관련), ○○한의원(강서)(피고인 7, 8, 9 관련), ◇◇◇한의원

(A) Comprehensively considering the evidence duly adopted by this Court, the following points are recognized.

1) Status of Defendant 5

① Defendant 5 was a director of the instant legal entity from the time of its incorporation to May 25, 2009, and was the representative director of the legal entity from May 25, 2009 to March 28, 201.

② Nonindicted 28 was the representative director of a corporation from May 11, 2004 to May 25, 2009 due to registration injury. In fact, Nonindicted 28 retired from the representative director of a corporation on April 19, 2008. Nonindicted 28 was not involved in the establishment of a medical institution for the said corporation at any time, and was only reported by mail by Defendant 5.

(ii) the process of opening each Council member and one Council member and the opening of each Council member;

① Defendant 5, in the position of a corporate director, opened each of the ○○○○○○○, the South-North ○○○○○, the ○○○○○○○, and the ○○○○○○○, respectively. On September 19, 2008, Defendant 5 loaned 100 million won from Nonindicted 16, which had a relationship with the former at the time, and opened on September 19, 2008, and established on May 6, 2009, the KRW 360 million was invested from Nonindicted 6, who was in the position of Nonindicted 6. Nonindicted 6 was appointed as the medical officer of the instant corporation on May 25, 2009, and was the head of Incheon Branch, and actually operated the ○○○○○, the ○○○, and the ○○○, a person who was in charge of the construction of a place of residence. Defendant 5 stated that he opened and operated an individual.

② As to Defendant 5’s ○○○, Defendant 5 found Nonindicted 2, the head of the medical business group of the instant corporation at the time, on the condition that he would receive one million won in return for the use of the name of the corporation each month, and considered Nonindicted 2 to have the person who would open a member.

③ Co-defendants in the first instance trial could not open a Council member under one’s own name because of bad credit standing. He heard that one Council member may be established through Nonindicted 2, and opened a Council member on January 18, 2008 using the machinery and equipment of △△△ Council member that he had operated.

④ 피고인 10은 공소외 2를 통해 이 사건 법인 명의를 빌려 의원을 개설할 수 있다는 말을 듣고 자신이 소유한 건물에 직접 인테리어공사를 하고 의료 기자재 설비를 마친 후 가입비 명목으로 1,000만원을 이 사건 법인 계좌에 입금하여 2008. 4. 21. ◁◁◁◁◁◁◁◁◁을 개설하였다.

⑤ Around August 2008, Defendant 7: (a) opened the ○○○ Medical Center from Defendant 5; (b) received a proposal from Defendant 5 to assist its operation; (c) around September 2008, Defendant 7 and Defendant 5 paid KRW 12 million to the instant legal entity monthly operating expenses; and (d) concluded an entrustment management agreement with the content that the remainder would result in Defendant 7. around September 2008, Defendant 7 agreed with the co-defendant of the first instance court and the co-defendant of the Korean herb doctor by dividing the profits he/she received with Defendant 8 on June 2009.

6) After ○○○○ Council member was established on September 19, 2008, Defendant 5 deposited the amount of charges paid by the National Health Insurance Corporation in the name of a passbook in the name of the instant corporation, Defendant 5 deducted the remainder from the amount of KRW 12 million and deposited the remainder into the passbook in the name of ○○ Council member.

(iii) the process of transferring each Council member and one Council member;

① On April 2010, Defendant 5 agreed to transfer KRW 5,000 from Defendant 9 to Defendant 9, the transfer amount of KRW 141 million (the transfer amount was finally determined as KRW 135 million). Defendant 5 received KRW 5,000 from Defendant 9.

② Around May 2010, Defendant 5 agreed to transfer to Defendant 3 the transfer amount of KRW 100 million (including KRW 20 million, and KRW 80 million, KRW 80 million, KRW 300,000, KRW 300,000). Defendant 3 donated hospital equipment and materials equivalent to KRW 150,000,000 to the instant corporation.

③ Defendant 5 did not directly receive the above transfer price from Defendant 9 or Defendant 3, and Defendant 9 or Defendant 3 donated to the instant corporation. However, if Defendant 3 was a member of the normal operation of the instant corporation, there is no reason to incur the said transfer price.

4) ◁◁◁◁◁◁◁◁◁의 운영권

피고인 10은 ◁◁◁◁◁◁◁◁◁을 운영하던 중 계속되는 적자로 직원 급여도 지급 못하는 등 경영이 어려워지자 2010. 4. 위 의원 소속 직원들과 사이에 직원들이 의원 운영에 직접 참여하기로 하는 내용의 협약서를 작성하고 의원 운영권을 넘겼으나, 이에 관하여 이 사건 법인에 전혀 보고한 바 없다.

5) Illegal medical examination and treatment of ○○○ Medical Center(s)

Co-defendant 7, 8, and 1 of the first instance trial, in operating the ○○ Medical Center, prepared a false medical record as if a patient had received medical treatment from September 19, 2008 to June 19, 2009, and filed a claim for total of KRW 4,146,870 from the National Health Insurance Corporation, and received a summary order at the Seoul Southern Southern District Court on March 29, 2010.

(vi) the operational status of each branch, member, and member;

① The instant corporation established a chapter head on each Council member and one Council member, and formally withdraws from the form of receiving a report on the operation of each Council member and one Council member from the head of each branch. However, in return for lending the name of each Council member and one Council member from Co-defendant of the first instance trial, Defendant 10, 7, 9, and 3 in return for the actual operation of each Council member and one Council member, each Council member and one Council member did not participate in the operation of each Council member and one Council member, such as the income of each Council member and one Council member or one Council member, and they used the profits,

② In a normal corporate operating hospital, the amount of medical care benefits equivalent to the Corporation’s charges under the benefits item should be deposited into the account in the name of the pertinent corporation in the case where all incomes, regardless of cash revenue under the benefits item, are deposited into the corporate account in which all incomes are actually managed by the corporate entity. In the case of each branch member and one member of the instant corporate group, the National Health Insurance Corporation paid the amount of medical care benefits equivalent to the Corporation’s charges under the benefits item to the account in the name of the instant corporate group. However, there is no evidence to deem that the income of cash, etc. among the benefits items

③ Co-defendant 1, Defendant 10, 7, 9, and 3, who operated each member of the instant corporation and Korea Council members, voluntarily raised funds necessary for the operation of the hospital.

④ According to the guidelines for the operation of the branch of the instant legal entity, the head of the branch office appears to be premised on the operation of the hospital beyond simply employed by the instant legal entity and managing the hospital in excess of the rent for managing the hospital.

(B) In full view of this, Defendant 5, directly or through the first instance trial, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, 8, 9, 10, and 3 lent the name of the instant legal entity to have a legitimate appearance only formally. In fact, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, 9, 10, and 3 decided on the management of the facilities of each of the above members and members, the establishment report, and the ownership of the operational performance of the instant legal entity. This constitutes the establishment of a medical institution prohibited by the Medical Service Act.

(4) Defendant 8’s ○○ (U.S.)

Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly admitted by the court, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) the Defendant had an interview with the Defendant 7 and had the Defendant work in ○○○○ Won after having interview; (b) the Defendant acknowledged, around March 2009, that the Defendant had been able to establish a hospital in his name as a person with bad credit standing, because he could not establish a hospital in his name with the knowledge that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was not a normal corporate operating hospital; (c) the Defendant would not be able to pay a certain amount of money to the Corporation every month in return for the use of the corporation’s name; and (d) the Defendant considered that the Defendant had a lot of investment such as equipment and materials from the first instance trial to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but he could be deemed to have been aware that the Defendant had been in the position of the Defendant 16.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

1. Defendant 1 and 5: The principal offender of the instant crime related to the instant legal entity, having a significant social risk and harm to a non-medical person’s establishment of a medical institution; the denial of his/her criminal act; Defendant 1 had the record of being punished for a violation of the Medical Service Act; and Defendant 1 had the record of being punished for a violation of the Medical Service Act; and the scale of the gains acquired or the duration of the crime.

2. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3: Defendant 2 committed a violation of the Medical Service Act in a leading position regardless of the instant legal entity; Defendant 3 is currently judged as a violation of a separate Medical Service Act; and Defendant 3 is sentenced to punishment against the Defendants in light of the size of acquired profits and the duration of the crime.

3. The remaining Defendants shall be sentenced to the same sentence as the disposition, taking full account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records of this case, such as the Defendants’ attitude of conduct, degree of participation in the commission of crime, size of profits acquired, period of crime, criminal record, and age.

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

피고인 5는 2010. 8. 2. 서울 영등포구 (주소 3 생략) ▽▽타운 202호에서 진료실, 물리치료실 등을 구비하고, 한의사 피고인 8 및 직원들을 고용한 후 ‘공소외 1 사단법인 ◎◎◎◎◎한의원’이라는 명칭으로 의료기관을 개설하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is not a doctor, established a medical institution.

(b) Fraud;

In case where a person who is not entitled to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has employed a doctor to perform medical practice, he may not claim medical care benefit costs under the National Health Insurance Act.

피고인 5는 2010. 8. 2.부터 2010. 11.경까지 위 ◎◎◎◎◎한의원을 운영하면서 한의사 피고인 8, 7을 고용하여 환자를 진료하게 한 후 건강보험심사평가원에 요양급여비용명세서를 제출하여 심사를 의뢰하고, 그 심사 결과를 통보받아 이를 진실로 믿은 피해자 국민건강보험공단으로부터 별지 범죄일람표(13) 기재와 같이 요양급여비 명목으로 합계 11,520,640원을 지급받았다.

2. Determination

피고인 5는 이 부분 공소사실에 대하여 검찰에서 이 사건 법인 대표이사의 지위에서 ◎◎◎◎◎한의원을 개설하였고, 당시 연인관계이던 공소외 8의 지인으로부터 5,000만원을 빌려 개설자금을 마련하였고, 당시 의료담당이사였던 피고인 3으로 하여금 의료시설을 준비시키고 직원을 채용하게 하였고, 당시 이 사건 법인과 자신을 동일시하여 이 사건 법인과 관련 없이 개인적으로 이를 운영하였다고 진술하여 이를 자백하였다.

그렇지만, ◎◎◎◎◎한의원이 형식상으로만 이 사건 법인의 명의를 빌려 개설되었다는 점, 즉 실질적으로 위 병원의 시설 및 인력의 충원·관리, 개설신고, 필요한 자금의 조달, 그 운영성과의 귀속 등이 어떻게 이루어졌는지에 관하여 피고인의 자백 외에 이를 보강할 만한 증거가 없는바, 그렇다면 피고인의 이 부분 자백은 피고인에게 불리한 유일한 증거로서 형사소송법 제310조 에 의하여 이를 유죄의 증거로 삼을 수 없다.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

[Attachment]

Judges or higher-ranking