All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendants 1’s violation of the Medical Service Act due to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendants 1) and 1’s violation of the former Medical Service Act: (i) the period of non-licensed medical practice was from September 29, 2011 to October 5, 201; (ii) the period of non-licensed medical practice was from September 29, 201 to October 16, 201; and (iii) Defendant A registered in the name of the Defendant with respect to the G G sexual surgery in Gwangju on December 16, 201, and immediately went into Seoul on the front day, only a leap operation was conducted, and immediately went into Seoul. Accordingly, this part cannot be held liable for the Defendant A; and (iii) Defendant B did not take a eroding and blood removal measures against the patient under the first instance judgment attached to the Seoul High Court, and (iv) Defendant B cannot be viewed as the general guidance, supervision, and treatment of the Defendant A’s non-licensed medical practice.

B) As to the violation of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, Defendant A was not the founder of the Gwangju G G sexual affairs division from January 2, 2005 to December 16, 201, and this part cannot be held liable to Defendant A.

C) With respect to the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the establishment and operation of multiple medical institutions, Defendant A only paid rent, etc. by having the university post-university receive the Seoul point by reporting the Seoul point to the post-university.

D) With respect to the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the modification of a medical record, the pertinent part of the modification of a medical record and additional entry is not a doctor but a doctor, and it is difficult to regard the pertinent entry as the content of a medical record because it is difficult to view it as the content of a medical record, and even if such modification is made, it is difficult to regard such act as a modification of a medical record subject to punishment under the Medical Service Act, and there is no fact that Defendant A instructed to correct the above entry

(ii)..