The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

9,649,060 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

3.2

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sales contract for the operation of the medical corporation of this case stated in this part of the facts charged was determined to be not a violation of the Medical Service Act, and the subject of each of the hospitals of this case was not the medical corporation of this case, but the medical corporation of this case. The medical corporation of this case was not the defendant, in the civil lawsuit related to L and the defendant et al. (2013 Busan District Court Decision 20710, 2014Na3443, Busan High Court Decision 2014Da8115, 2014).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of each of the instant hospitals based on the statements of T, S, L, etc. without credibility and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a punishment of imprisonment of three years, an additional collection charge of nine thousand,649,060) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the first instance trial, the prosecutor changed the victim of the crime by acquiring medical benefits of each hospital from the National Health Insurance Corporation to "non-regular local government" and withdraws the charges of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) related to the O hospital-related Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in light of the following (the reasons for the new judgment), the facts charged prior to the amendment of the indictment, the contents of the written application for the amendment of the indictment that the court below found guilty and the contents of the written application for the amendment of the indictment, and the progress of the oral argument in the first instance trial, etc.

the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

In addition, the revised facts charged and the remaining facts charged that the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.