The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for four months.

However, for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not s/O parts but printed out and omitted parts. In fact, the Defendant stated in detail the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment contents, such as the records of progress (Evidence No. 1) submitted by the Defendant. The F’s medical records released do not have any record ex post facto, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the Medical Service Act.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered by Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor's improper argument that the court below sentenced the defendant A to the sentencing is unfair because it is too unfasible.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged 1) Defendant A’s doctor shall keep a medical record, etc. and record the matters and opinions concerning the medical practice prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, including the patient’s main symptoms, diagnosis and treatment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not record the main symptoms, diagnosis and treatment in a medical records, etc., even though he/she taken a radiation photograph against the above patient F on April 29, 2015 and on April 30, 2015, as stated in the lower judgment’s crime No. 1-A, and on June 10, 2015, he/she did not record it in detail in the medical records, etc., even though he/she was confirmed that the above patient’s ties were cut off at the same hospital on June 10, 2015.

2) The Defendant A medical corporation is a medical corporation established and operated with the aim of contributing to improving national health and health through research and development on health and medical services.

A, who is the defendant's will, violated the Medical Service Act in relation to the defendant's business at the time and place mentioned in paragraph (1).

B. The lower court determined that the medical record was submitted to an investigation agency on a different date, other than the detailed additional content was stated only on the date at which the issue was raised, in comparison with the previous medical record.