beta
Text
The judgment below
We reverse the remainder except for the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.
A fine of KRW 10,00,000 shall apply to the defendant.
Reasons
1. Progress of lawsuit and the scope of trial of this court;
A. A. The prosecutor brought a prosecution against the Defendant on the grounds of fraud, violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. ( native to), violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, violation of the Mental Health Act, violation of the Mental Health Act, and the Functional Foods Act. 2) The lower court sentenced the entire charges to a fine of KRW 15 million, and the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing.
3) The judgment of the court before remanding the judgment of the court below was reversed, and the defendant was acquitted of a fine of KRW 13 million and violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act. The defendant appealed only against the conviction. 4) The court of final appeal reversed the conviction part of the judgment of the court before remand and remanded to this court.
B. As seen above, the part of the judgment below in violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act was already separated and finalized, and thus, the object of the judgment is limited to the remaining part except that of violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) As to the fraud by the procedure of false personal mental therapy, the Defendant actually performed the procedure of personal mental therapy, and with respect to the fraud by the medical care benefit claim, the Defendant only used the health insurance card under his name with the consent of H and K for the Defendant’s own treatment, and thus, cannot be deemed to have acquired the health care benefit. As to the violation of the Mental Health Act, even though the Defendant actually diagnosed M and hospitalized the hospital, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the basis of the Defendant’s confession, which is the only reliable evidence or the only evidence. (2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.