beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant, while participating in the establishment and operation of “N Council member”, who is a medical institution, B,O, etc., committed functional control through essential contribution in realizing the instant crime of violation of the Medical Service Act and the instant crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the course of its operation, and that, as long as he/she participated as a joint principal offender in such crime, he/she did not directly participate
In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the aforementioned judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of medical institutions by non-medical persons, the degree of participation
2. As to the third ground of appeal, the lower court determined that the facts constituting a crime of violation of the Medical Service Act (the Defendant’s establishment of five hospitals, such as W&C with no doctor or medical institution) established against the Defendant and the part of the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the fraud) or fraud in the course of operating the above five hospitals among the facts charged in the instant case cannot be deemed to be identical with each other, and that the indictment of this part constitutes abuse of the right of prosecution or punishment by recognizing the Defendant’s guilty cannot be deemed to constitute double punishment.
In light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of the right to prosecute and double punishment, as alleged in the grounds of
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.