The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), Defendant A and C’s confession, and the statement of the persons involved in the instant case, even though Defendant B, a non-medical person, led to the establishment and operation of the instant hospital and could sufficiently be recognized that the instant hospital violated the Medical Service Act, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in the instant case on a different premise, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the instant facts charged in its reasoning of judgment.

B. According to the reasoning of the court below, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and evidence newly examined at the trial (the witness B's statement), whether the act of establishing a medical institution by non-medical personnel and medical personnel under an agreement to operate a medical institution constitutes an act of establishing a non-medical personnel prohibited by the Medical Service Act shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the content and form of the business relationship, the degree of participation in the establishment of the medical institution, the types of operation of the medical institution, etc., as well as the establishment and operation of the medical institution, and accordingly, it shall be determined that the non-medical personnel established and operated the medical institution under the lead of the establishment and operation of the medical institution (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Do2015, Nov. 30, 201; 2015Do378, Apr. 7, 2017).