The monthly receipt of a unauthorized licensing who is employed in a hospital by deceiving that he/she is qualified as a doctor, and the sex of fraud;

If a person without a doctor's license deceivings the owner of a hospital as a doctor with a license and the director of the internal division was employed and received 29,700,000 won in total as a monthly wage, it is evident that fraud is established even if the person provided many patients while working at the above hospital for 11 months, and provided them with more skills and labor.

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendants

Jeju District Court (81 Gohap113, 115)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of four years and a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, he/she shall be confined in a workhouse for a period converted into one day.

One hundred-five days of detention prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

A certificate of doctor's license (certificate No. 1), a certificate of doctor's license (certificate No. 1), a certificate of doctor's license (certificate No. 2), a certificate of doctor's license for internal medicine medical specialists (certificate No. 2), one certificate of inspector's license for Minister of Bolis (certificate No. 3), and one certificate of doctor's license for American academic circles (certificate No. 4) shall be confiscated from

Punishments imposed on Defendant 2 shall be suspended.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 is as follows: First, since the defendant received a monthly amount of KRW 29,70,00 in relation to the part concerning fraud among the facts charged in this case as compensation for his technology and labor, fraud cannot be established. It is a double punishment to punish the defendant as a crime of fraud. The second grounds for appeal and the grounds for appeal by a state counsel against the defendant are that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable because the sentencing of the defendant is too too too unreasonable. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant is that the sentencing of the court below is too too unreasonable. First, since the defendant was employed as the defendant's counsel's defense counsel's grounds for appeal by the defendant 2, the defendant cannot be said to be a death without permission, the defendant is punished as a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, the defendant's imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 10 years and 10 years, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence.

Therefore, we first examine the defendant 1's assertion of violation of law, and even if the defendant provided technology and labor at the above defendant 2's hospital for 11 months, the sum of 29,700,000 won received by the above defendant's defendant's monthly wage is the amount acquired by deceiving the defendant 2 as the intention of holding the above defendant's license, and it is obvious that the crime of fraud, which is the property crime under the Criminal Act, is established against the above defendant, and even if the defendant is punished for violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, which is the administrative punishment law to regulate non-licensed medical acts, it cannot be viewed as double punishment. Thus, the above appeal is groundless.

Next, according to Defendant 2's assertion of mistake of facts, it can be acknowledged that Defendant 1 was aware that he was a non-licensed physician, who was employed by the head of the division inside the Dong and had many patients treated for about 11 months. However, the joint penal provisions of Article 6 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes under the same Act for the purpose of regulating non-licensed medical acts. Therefore, whether an employee or business owner was aware of an offense committed by an employee or his employee is without a complaint for the application of the joint penal provisions. However, if the employee or business owner was aware of the offense committed by the employee, it can be exempted only if the employee or business owner did not have any negligence in the supervision, but it is presumed that there was a negligence in the appointment and supervision of the employee or business owner, and in this case, Defendant 2 did not request the above public prosecutor's license or non-indicted 1, who was employed by the director of the division, and the above public prosecutor's license or non-indicted 1, who was not aware of the qualifications of the above defendant.

Finally, as to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor, there is no reason to discuss the appeal by the prosecutor that the court below's appeal pointing this out is too unreasonable, since it is reasonable to discuss the appeal by the Defendants, and the sentencing of the court below is too weak, since it is reasonable to discuss the appeal by the prosecutor that the defendants pointing this out are too poor in terms of the motive, etc. for the crime of this case. In particular, Defendant 2 may take into account the motive, etc. for the crime of this case and obtain a large amount of money from the above defendants 1.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members of the company are again decided as follows.

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 0 years (Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes) and Article 347 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 6 and Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Criminal Crimes provides that the defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 0 years; Article 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes provides that the defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 0 years; Article 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Criminal Crimes provides that the defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 0 years; Article 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 50 of the same Act shall apply to the defendants' provision of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 0 years; Article 50 of the same Act on Special Measures for the Punishment of Public Health Crimes.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)