The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Medical Service Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”), Defendant B took over and established the K Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”), which I tried to establish, and actually operated as to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the Defendants’ assertion). Defendant C merely took over and actually operated the instant hospital from Defendant B, and Defendant C did not lend its name in establishing and operating the instant hospital.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of committing the crime of establishing a non-medical institution by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Medical Service Act.

(2) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), as long as the permission to establish the instant hospital is not null and void, the medical care institution has the right to claim expenses for medical care as a medical care institution, and even though the medical care institution received expenses for medical care based on the normal medical care by the medical care provider, the lower court found the Defendant guilty

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (one year and six months of each imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below as to the establishment of a crime of violation of the Medical Service Act (1) is based on the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the assertion in detail by giving a detailed statement of the judgment as to “the person who established the hospital No. 1: the person who established the hospital No. 2: Defendant B and the defense counsel” under the title “the judgment on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel.” In addition to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, taking into account the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.