The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, Article 33(8) of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 11252, Feb. 1, 2012); however, the lower court applied Article 33(8) of the current Medical Service Act (hereinafter “former Medical Service Act”) to the effect that medical personnel cannot establish and operate more than one medical institution for any reason, on the basis that the period of temporary completion of the instant crime was around January 201. However, the lower court applied Article 33(8) of the current Medical Service Act (hereinafter “former provision”).

Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(8) of the former Medical Service Act (Amended by Act No. 14438, Dec. 20, 2016) were introduced in the lower court’s application of statutes on the overlapping establishment and operation of medical institutions.

However, Article 33(8) of the Act on December 20, 2016, which applied the penal provisions prior to the amendment of the Act on December 20, 2016, is not modified after the amendment of the Act on February 1, 2012, and thus, it can be deemed that the current Medical Service Act is applied.

Therefore, the court below erred in the application of law, and based on the interpretation of the preceding provision before the amendment, since D has 30% shares of I dental license, it constitutes not only formal names but also substantial medical institution founders, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has established a medical institution in duplicate.

Nevertheless, the defendant has established a medical institution in duplicate.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 20 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine 1) The main text of the former provision prior to the amendment “medical person may establish only one medical institution.”

The main text of the current provision, which was amended by Act No. 11252 on February 1, 2012 (amended by Act No. 11252, Aug. 2, 2012), provided that “A medical person may not establish and operate two or more medical institutions under any pretext.”

“.......”

This is the medical treatment.