logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.08.13 2015노227
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

All appeals filed against Defendants E and F by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the statement of grounds of appeal on May 13, 2015, Defendant C, F, and his/her defense counsel argued that some of the facts or misapprehensions of the legal principles regarding the violation of the Medical Service Act and the violation of the Act on the AA convalescent and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) were grounds for appeal. However, on June 11, 2015, through a supplementary report on the grounds of appeal filed on June 10, 2015, which was stated at the second date for pleading of the trial, the above misapprehension of the legal principles or the misapprehension of the legal principles were withdrawn and the assertion of only the grounds for appeal was adjusted to be

1) Under the below, the defendant uses the name "defendant" only for the defendant who falls under any of the items, and the remaining defendants shall state only their names. C [the crime No. 1-A] of the original judgment.

B. Violation of the Medical Service Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) related to the establishment and operation of a port X convalescent hospital] The Defendant did not have received monthly pay from the X convalescent hospital in the name of the Defendant as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant received monthly pay in the name of the wife Y, and the amount also is not KRW 4.2 million per month but KRW 3.5 million per month. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each charge of violation of the Medical Service Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) The Defendant was working as the chief of a department in the AY convalescent hospital from around June 201 to July 201, and the Defendant was working as the head of a department in the AY convalescent hospital from around 2012.

arrow