A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a dentist who is the director of the D dental clinic located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

No person shall introduce, arrange or induce patients to medical institutions or medical persons for profit, such as exempting or discounting personal contributions under the National Health Insurance Act or the Medical Care Benefits Act, providing money, goods, etc. or providing transportation convenience to many and unspecified persons, etc., and instigate such act.

Nevertheless, on June 19, 2015, the Defendant discounted the patient’s own charges over five occasions, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 2, from that time, from that time, the Defendant discounted the patient’s charges to the patient E, who was within the dental clinic, of KRW 9,00,00, out of KRW 14,000 of the patient’s charges for the procedures for the removal of crypting (Sying) to the patient E.

As a result, the Defendant discounted the patient's own charges, thereby inducing the patient to a medical institution for profit.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, a copy of a set of diagnosis and treatment, and a criminal investigation report (the verification of the basis for calculating the principal's charges to the

1. Relevant provisions of the Act and Articles 88 and 27 (3) of the Medical Service Act concerning facts constituting a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant alleged that his act was merely an act of attracting patients for a limited period of two weeks at the time of opening dental hospitals, and cannot be deemed as an act of inducing patients for profit. However, the Defendant’s act of discounting the patient’s own share of expenses for the removal of flachis corresponding to the benefits items to attract patients of the newly opened dental clinic, competition between the patient’s unnecessary excessive medical treatment and the medical institutions.