All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Medical Service Act by Defendant A, C, and D

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the act of Defendant C and D committed an unlicensed medical practice in collusion with Defendant C, A, D, and A to have a radiation company, who is not a doctor, conduct a stove test, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that Defendant C and D provided specific prior or ex post facto guidance during the process of conducting a stove test.

(1) It is difficult to view that Defendant C and D’s prior direction and supervision was completed on the ground that most of the parts of the body part, which was prepared by the inspector, are indicated by specifying the parts of the body part, which was requested to undergo a stove test by the inspector.

(2) After conducting the first-wave test, Defendant A sent his opinion to Defendant C and D, stating his own opinion along with the closed screen which was stored. The Defendant’s opinion was written on the following: (a) 'Local area’, 's front-time line ',’ and 'high-speed line ';’ 's front-time line ';’ 'high-time wing back ';’’ type '; 's front-time wing back ';’ type ';’ 's back-to-door wing ';’ type '; and (b) 's back-to-face wing ';’ type ';’ '; '; '.’ type ';’

Defendant

A has made medical judgments based on his/her medical knowledge to record the above names.

(3) Defendant A and D could not directly see the remainder of the ultra-wave images other than the closed screen which was stored by deeming it as necessary from the reading data, such as that there is an abnormal opinion, while conducting the ultra-wave test. As long as Defendant C and D prepared a report on the result of the ultra-wave test based on the data received by Defendant A, there was no possibility that the post-wave may be found insofar as Defendant A and D were too excessive.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is insufficient.