The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant F shall be reversed.

Defendant

F. be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating this part of the Medical Service Act by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the guilty portion of the first instance judgment, although the Defendant was merely a financial investor who invested in the BP hospital, and did not have established and operated the BP hospital in the name of the joint Defendant F, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In addition, since travel expenses for medical care paid by the TPP hospital are the consideration for legitimate medical practice by the medical personnel with legitimate qualifications, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant BR’s assertion (1) against the judgment of the court below of first instance is erroneous, and the court below found Defendant B Q and F guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there was no fact that Defendant B Q and F was involved in the operation of the BP hospital.

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the travel expenses for the care-based medical care paid by the misunderstanding BP hospital did not constitute fraud because it is a consideration for lawful medical practice of the medical personnel with lawful

(3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant F’s assertion (1) against the judgment of the court below 1, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the joint Defendant B Q and BR did not take part in the crime of aiding and abetting the BP hospital’s medical care-oriented travel expenses from the National Health Insurance Corporation.