The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the attached list of crimes.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is an intention to operate E members of the Republic of Korea E in South and North Korea-U.D.

Although a medical person prepares a false medical record, etc. or intentionally makes an additional entry or revision differently from the fact, the Defendant prepared a false medical record book at least 638 times in total, as described in the attached Table Nos. 1 through 82, 45 through 474, 504 through 802, and 3748 through 3984, from the time on April 7, 2012, even though F, who was within the above hospital, did not perform a blood examination, he/she prepared a false medical record book as if he/she had conducted a false blood examination.

2) The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction on this part of the facts charged by applying Article 88 subparag. 1 and Article 22 subparag. 3 of the Medical Service Act.

However, Article 22(3) of the Medical Service Act, stating that “A medical person shall not make a false record, etc. or intentionally make an additional entry or revision differently from the fact,” was newly established as a result of the amendment of the Medical Service Act by Act No. 10565 on April 7, 2011, and the aforementioned provision was enforced from April 8, 2012 when one year has passed after its promulgation in accordance with the Addenda. This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no penal provision at the time of the act, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the lower court rendered a single sentence by deeming this part and the remaining parts of the lower court convicted as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.