Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the charges of violation of the Medical Service Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes”) by Defendant A from January 2015 to January 2, 2016, Defendant A operated the so-called “office-based hospital” prohibited by the Medical Service Act by Defendant A from January 2, 2015.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged after January 2015, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding facts.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (four years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant C conspired with Defendant A to fully recognize the fact that Defendant C operated the F convalescent Hospital in the form of a senior hospital from October 13, 201 to February 23, 2012.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles in finding the Defendant C not guilty of the facts charged.

2) In relation to the facts charged against Defendant B’s use of the forged private document, according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B shared Defendant A’s act of forging a comprehensive transfer agreement with the intent of co-processing.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged as to the use of a falsified falsified investigation document by Defendant B was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles (the court below was the sole case at the time of filing a public action against Defendant B’s deception (the Decision 2017 High Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 313). However, the court below was a case combining the agreed parts in accordance with the consolidated proceedings decision of the court below.

The Court also pronounced not guilty of this case.

In this regard, the prosecutor shall make this part of the appeal in the “scope of appeal” column of the petition of appeal.