All of the first and second original judgments (excluding the part of compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of three years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the first judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant: (a) committed a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles; (b) committed a violation of the Consumer Cooperatives Act by establishing a QA; and (c) on October 18, 2017, the Defendant was indicted with the Defendant as a medical specialist in the first instance court and the second instance court, and died on October 18, 2017 while the Defendant was tried at the first instance court and the second instance court, as the expenses paid by the Defendant were less than KRW 30,000,000, the minimum amount of the establishment of the cooperative was less than KRW 30,000,000. Nevertheless, the first instance court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the facts or of the violation of the Medical Service Act, the Act on the AAR of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by misapprehending the relevant legal principles; and (d) the Defendant changed its trade name into “A QAS won after the establishment.”

It was an employee who was in charge of administrative affairs of A QG Council members and A QAT hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant hospitals”) and did not lead the operation of each of the instant hospitals in collusion with H.

Nevertheless, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the relevant legal principles.

3. Of the second lower judgment, the Defendant did not deceiving the said victim to the effect that the 70 sickbeds have been secured at the time of concluding an entrustment contract for a hospital restaurant with the victim B, by setting the amount of KRW 70 million.

Since the Defendant was able to engage in economic activities at the time and had the intent or ability to return the above security money received from the victim B by providing adequate security, there is no intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the second instance court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

B. The first and second instances of unfair sentencing are imposed.