Defendant 1 and five others

Park Jong-sung, Park Jong-young, Kim Chang-she (prosecution), Park Chang-sheon, Jeon Soo-hee, Kim Jong-hee, Lee Jong-hee, Lee Jong-hee (Public trial)

Law Firm Dong-in et al.

1. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months;

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant 1 shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the double establishment and operation of medical institutions, each of the inducement for profit, each of the following offenses, each of the violation of the Medical Service Act due to inducing patients to provide convenience to the attached Table 1 through 17, 20 through 48, 50 through 53, 55 through 60, and 62 through 87, each of the charges against Defendant 1, each of the charges against Defendant 1, each of the violation of the Mental Health Act due to refusing to comply with each patient's request for discharge from each of the attached Table 2 through 14, and 16 through 21, each of the charges against Defendant 1, each of the violation of the National Health Insurance Act.

2. Defendant 2 shall be punished by a fine of fourteen thousand won or more.

When Defendant 2 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 2 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, each of the following facts are not guilty: (a) violation of the Medical Service Act due to the inducement of patients to provide convenience, each of the following facts: (b) each of the following facts charged against Defendant 2; (c) violation of the Medical Service Act due to the solicitation of patients to provide convenience; (d) violation of each of the following facts; and (e) violation of the Mental Health Act due to the refusal to demand the discharge of each patient.

3. The defendant 3 is not guilty;

4. Defendant 4 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000.

When Defendant 4 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 4 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The defendant 4 is not guilty of a violation of the Medical Service Act due to the inducement of patients for convenience in the attached Table 1 through 17, 20 through 87.

5. Defendant 5 shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won.

When Defendant 5 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 5 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The defendant 5's each inducement for profit, the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the inducement of the patient to provide convenience to the defendant 5 and the violation of the attached Table 1 through 17, 20 through 48, 50 through 53, 55 through 60, and 62 through 87

6. Defendant 6 (Defendant 5) is not guilty.

【Criminal Power】

On July 9, 2014, Defendant 2 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 8 months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court on July 9, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 17th of the same month.

On November 25, 2010, Defendant 5 was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for robbery at Seoul Southern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 3, 2010, and was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny in the same court on September 5, 2011, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 25, 2012, and the said sentence was invalidated. On December 5, 2012, Defendant 5 completed the execution of each of the said punishment at a main prison.

【Criminal Facts】

"2014 Gohap532" and "2014 Gohap941"

1. Violation of the Medical Service Act;

Defendant 1, while seeking measures to attract inpatientss for hospital earnings, proposed to provide homeless persons in Seoul Station, Yeongdeungpo Station, etc. with accommodation and tobacco, etc. to provide them with various conveniences, and the homeless were born to ○○ Hospital directly by burning them on the vehicle of ○○ Hospital and ○○ Hospital in writing.

Defendant 1: (a) Defendant 2 was employed as a guardian by receiving hospitalized treatment through alcohol addiction at △△ Hospital; and (b) was attracting patients against the homeless in Seoul Station, Young Station, etc.; (c) Defendant 4 as the head of the administrative office of ○○ Hospital; and (d) Defendant 4 as the head of the external cooperation division; (c) around that time, Defendant 5 and Nonindicted 1, etc., who had been hospitalized in the ○○ Hospital due to alcohol addiction, were employed as a guardian; and (d) instructed the homeless to attract the homeless to the ○○ Hospital by using vehicles to the homeless in Seoul Station, Young Station, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “traffic”).

around October 12, 2013, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, etc., and Nonindicted 1 told Nonindicted 4, who had been sleeped in the vicinity of the Young Military Station, to the effect that “I would like to make a family tobacco available to a hospital and resolve board and board. I would make it a recipient of basic living. I would make it a family unit.” Defendant 2 arbitrarily installed a flick light, etc. without the approval of the competent authority, and was hospitalized into the ○○ Hospital and the ○○ Hospital.

As a result, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 conspiredd with Nonindicted 1, etc. to provide transportation, etc. to Nonindicted 4 five times from October 2013 to January 2014, such as providing transportation, etc. to Nonindicted 4 on five occasions as indicated in the list of crimes recognized in the attached Table (However, with respect to Defendant 4, excluding Nos. 3 to 5 on a yearly basis).

2. Violation of the Mental Health Act due to non-compliance with a patient's request for discharge;

(a) 2014Gohap532;

Where a patient hospitalized as a person applies for discharge, the director of the mental medical institution, etc. shall discharge him/her without delay.

Defendant 1, as described in the above Paragraph 1, entered Nonindicted 3, who was induced, was in a closed ward, and continued to enter the closed ward without releasing Nonindicted 3, who demanded the discharge.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 did not immediately discharge Nonindicted 3 who demanded discharge.

(b) 2014Gohap849;

Where a patient hospitalized as a person applies for discharge, the director of the mental medical institution, etc. shall discharge him/her without delay.

On October 31, 2013, Defendant 1 entered Non-Indicted 2, who was on know-how in the Seoul Station, into a closed ward without any particular explanation on the procedure for entering the closed ward, and continued to enter the closed ward without releasing Non-Indicted 2, who demanded discharge from December 27, 2013.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 did not immediately discharge Nonindicted 2 who demanded discharge.

3. Violation of the Automobile Management Act due to a change in the structure of illegal and private vehicles;

When intending to alter the structure or device of a motor vehicle, approval from the competent authorities shall be obtained.

Nevertheless, on May 2013, Defendant 2, without the approval of the competent authority, installed a light light, etc. attached to the fluor vehicle owned by Defendant 2 on the (vehicle registration number omitted), the low-speed passenger vehicle owned by Defendant 2, and changed the structure by marking the hospital mark, and then transferred the elderly to the 000 hospital by burning the elderly at the Seoul Station, the Young-gu Station, etc. until March 10, 2014.

" 2015 Gohap422"

4. Violation of the Mental Health Act due to non-verification of intention of discharge against a mentally ill person;

The director of a mental medical institution, etc. shall ascertain whether a mentally ill person hospitalized by a person has an intention to discharge him/her at least once a year, and shall enter this in the medical records and obtain confirmation from the patient himself/herself.

A. Violation of the Mental Health Act with Nonindicted 25

Defendant 1 did not verify whether he/she intended to discharge Nonindicted 25, a patient who was hospitalized at the △○ Hospital, who was employed by the head of the hospital, from May 27, 2013 to August 5, 2014, the Defendant, who was in the strengthened military unit ( Address 1 omitted), had the intent of discharge.

B. Violation of the Mental Health Act with Nonindicted 26

From July 21, 2013 to August 5, 2014, Defendant 1 did not verify whether he/she intended to discharge Nonindicted 26, a patient who was hospitalized in the above hospital, from around 1, 2013 to around 5, 2014.

"2014 Gohap532" and "2014 Gohap941"

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 4 and 5

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 3

1. The statement made by Nonindicted 7 in the third trial record

1. Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6’s partial statement

1. Indicating some of the prosecutorial records concerning Defendant 1 in the examination of suspect;

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 3

1. The register of automobiles (A);

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Criminal records (defendants 2 and 5), report on confirmation of the previous records of disposition (attached to the judgment, Defendant 6), report on confirmation of the previous records of disposition (defendants 5), investigation report (attached to the judgment related to repeated crimes of Defendant 5);

" 2014Gohap849"

1. Part of the protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 by the prosecution (the part which stated that Defendant 1 stated that he/she “to be discharged” was written in the interview record on December 27, 2013, 378, the investigative record No. 378)

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 2

1. Copy of the statement made by the police against Nonindicted 2

1. A complaint prepared by Nonindicted 2

1. Copies of each medical record (No. 26097, No. 59307), respectively;

1. A criminal investigation report (verification of concurrent relations under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act of Defendant 2 of the Criminal Act);

" 2015 Gohap422"

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Written accusation (No. 9286 of 2014);

1. Copies of each medical record (No. 9286, 2014);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 88 and 27(3) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the violation of the Medical Service Act due to solicitation of patients, such as provision of convenience, the choice of each imprisonment), Article 5 subparag. 2 of the Mental Health Act, and Article 23(2) of the Mental Health Act (the violation of the Mental Health Act due to non-compliance with a patient's request for discharge), Article 57 subparag. 1 of the Mental Health Act, Article 57 subparag. 1 of the Mental Health Act, and Article 23(3) of the same Act (the violation of the Mental Health Act due to non-verification of intention

B. Defendant 2: Articles 88 and 27(3) of the Medical Service Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the Medical Service Act, the choice of fines) and Articles 81 subparag. 19 and 34 of the Automobile Management Act (the point of violation of the Automobile Management Act and the selection of fines)

C. Defendant 4: Articles 88 and 27(3) of the Medical Service Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the Medical Service Act, the choice of each fine)

(d) Defendant 5: Articles 88 and 27(3) of the Medical Service Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the Medical Service Act and the selection of each fine)

[Defendant 1's defense counsel asserts that the act of a medical institution or a medical person's act of attracting a patient to himself/herself is not "induce of a patient" under Article 25 (3) of the former Medical Service Act, unless there are special circumstances such as the provision of money or goods to the patient or his/her act, or fundamental harm to the order of the medical market, and that the act does not constitute "inducing or arranging the patient" or "inducing the patient even if the act was performed through an employee who is not a medical personnel," and that the act of the employee of ○○○ Hospital's act of bringing the patient to the hospital while promising to provide tobacco and the provision of accommodation free fees, etc. does not constitute a violation of the Medical Service Act.

According to the above evidence, the employees of ○○ Hospital, including Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Nonindicted 1, etc., provided tobacco or accommodation to the elderly, etc., around the Seoul Station, etc., and provided convenience in having them hospitalized in a hospital at the ○○ Hospital. Defendant 1 also provided the revenues of ○○ Hospital, which is mainly medical care costs, and the patient bears, but even though 90% of the revenues of ○○ Hospital is a person who does not have certain revenues as a homeless person, they are treated as losses, most of the charges to be borne by ○○ Hospital (No. 60392 of the investigation records of 2014, No. 3018 of the investigation records of 2014). Although these acts were mostly exempted from the personal charges to be borne by ○○ Hospital employees, such as Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5, and Nonindicted 1, etc., even if there were some other medical institutions providing similar convenience, they do not seem to have any fundamental reason contrary to the purpose of the Medical Service Act.

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Mental Health Act due to non-compliance with a request for discharge against Non-Indicted 3 with the heavier punishment and punishment)

B. Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Medical Service Act against Nonindicted 4 with the largest punishment and punishment)

C. Defendant 4: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Medical Service Act as to Nonindicted 4 with the largest offense)

D. Defendant 5: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment stipulated in the Medical Service Act as to Nonindicted 4 with the largest offense)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant 1: Imprisonment for not more than seven years and six months;

B. Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5: Each fine not exceeding 1.5 million won

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not be set.

3. Determination of sentence;

Defendant 1, as the head of ○○○ Hospital, which is a mental and medical doctor and a medical institution, provides transportation prohibited by the Medical Service Act, including Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5, who is an employee of the ○○○ Hospital, with the care of attracting the aged to be hospitalized in the hospital, thereby undermining the order in the medical market by inducing them to be hospitalized in the hospital. Defendant 1 does not constitute such crimes as delaying the discharge without complying with the demand of the patient who was voluntarily hospitalized in the hospital, and failing to confirm the intention of the discharge of some inpatientss.

However, Defendant 1 or the employees of hospital do not seem to have exercised the means of deception or force in inducing patients, and it appears that the homeless persons are hospitalized in the hospital for the purpose of resolving their board and lodging. Defendant 1 appears to have been discharged from the hospital because they did not completely recover even after receiving a request for discharge from the hospital, and even if they did not completely recover from the hospital, it appears that they did not immediately respond to the demand for discharge for continuous treatment, and that Defendant 1 did not have any criminal record.

Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 instructed Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 to be hospitalized by inducing homeless persons in the Seoul Station, or commit the above act, thereby undermining the order of the medical market. Defendant 2 and Defendant 5 should bear the corresponding responsibility for the crime committed in the same manner as the crime in the judgment of the court below, on the other hand, during the suspension period of the execution of this kind of crime, and on the other hand, during the period of the suspension of the execution, Defendant 5 and Defendant 5

However, there were no additional economic benefits, such as the degree of the above Defendants’ participation in the patient inducement, and the daily allowance according to the number of patients induced in addition to the amount determined by the ○○ Hospital. Based on the experience of his old-age, the above Defendants seems to have intended to provide the homeless with convenience in treating board and lodging or disease.

1. Violation of the Medical Service Act due to the double establishment and operation of medical institutions by Defendant 1 and Defendant 3

A. Summary of the facts charged

No medical person shall establish and operate at least two medical institutions under any pretext.

Defendant 3, who was establishing and operating a △△ Hospital (mental Hospital) in Gyeyang-gu Incheon from around 2011 as a psychiatrist, has formulated a plan to establish and operate an additional mental hospital in Incheon, and was awarded a successful bid with the intention to use the building ( Address 1 omitted) located in Incheon, which had been conducting an auction around February 2013 as a mental hospital.

Defendant 3 proposed that Defendant 1, a psychiatrist, who had worked as a staff specialist at a convalescent hospital, mental hospital, etc. for several years in order to avoid the prohibition of double establishment and operation of medical institutions, work as the head of a hospital in the name of the medical specialist, and Defendant 1 accepted this.

Accordingly, on May 23, 2013, Defendant 3 established the “○○ Hospital (mental Hospital)” in the Incheon Reinforcement-gun ( Address 1 omitted) Specialized Department. Defendant 3 opened the “Ma○○ Hospital” in the name of Defendant 1, with ten hospitalization rooms, the second floor having 84 beds, and the second floor having 84 beds, with the “○○ Hospital” in the name of Defendant 1. Nonindicted 8, who worked as the head of the relevant ○○ Hospital Secretariat, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 4, who worked as the head of the administrative office in the said ○○ Hospital, and the head of the administrative office of the said ○○ Hospital, and the head of the external cooperation department, and Nonindicted 9, etc. in the above △△△ Hospital, operated the above ○ Hospital until March 2014 by attracting patients and other mentally ill persons, including mentally ill persons.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 conspiredd to establish and operate a medical institution twice.

B. Determination

The establishment of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have such convictions as to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions may lead to such convictions, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the owner of the building of the ○○ Hospital transferred approximately 20 patients hospitalized in the △△ Hospital established and operated by the defendant 3 at the time of opening the ○○ Hospital to the ○○ Hospital, and some of the employees working at the △ Hospital including the defendant 8, 2, and 4 work for the ○○ Hospital to the ○○ Hospital. Defendant 1 transferred KRW 40 million to the ○○○ Hospital’s account on May 24, 2013. Defendant 1 was suspected of having been working for the ○○ Hospital to the ○○○○ Hospital on the ○○○○ Hospital on the 205’s account. Defendant 1 received medical care benefits from the National Health Insurance Corporation on May 23, 2013 until February 7, 2014, to the 2014 account of the ○○ Hospital on the aggregate of KRW 30,000,000,000 from the 200 account.

그러나 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실 또는 사정 즉, 피고인 1과 피고인 3은 대학 선·후배 사이로 피고인 3이 사법연수원 재학 중 피고인 1이 소장으로 재직하는 치료감호소에서 실무수습을 하였고, 이후 학회 등을 통하여 꾸준히 교류가 있었던 점, ○○○병원 개원시 피고인 1이 자금이 없어 피고인 3과 사이에 ○○○병원 건물에 관하여 2013. 5. 22. 보증금 5,000만원, 차임 월 2,750만원(부가가치세 포함), 임대기간 2년으로 정한 임대차계약을 체결하고 이후 피고인 1이 소유하던 강남구 (주소 2 생략) (호수 생략)이 매각되면 보증금을 인상하기로 약정한 사실, 피고인 1은 2013. 4.경 △△병원의 감사로 근무하던 공소외 8을 ○○○병원의 사무국장으로 채용하여 그를 통하여 피고인 1 명의로 ○○○병원 개설허가신청을 한 점, 피고인 3은 피고인 1을 대신하여 ○○○병원 내부시설 공사를 하고 대금 1억 4,000만 원 가량을 지급하였고, 초기 운영자금 6,000만 원도 대여하고 2013. 6. 28. 피고인 1로부터 2억 원의 차용증을 교부받았으며, 그 외 △△병원에서 사용하던 의료기기도 ○○○병원에 매도한 점, 피고인 1은 2013. 8. 2. 그 소유 이던 위 (주소 2 생략) (호수 생략)를 6억 9,500만 원에 매도하여 그 중 3억 원은 2013. 12. 30. 피고인 3에게 인상된 보증금으로 지급한 점(피고인 3은 이미 받았던 5,000만 원을 피고인 1에게 반환하였다), 피고인 1이나 피고인 3은 2014. 1. 1.부터 2014. 1. 30.까지 사이에 피고인 1로부터 피고인 3에게 송금된 합계 268,141,325원은 앞서 본 차용증에 따른 차용금의 변제와 의료기기 대금, 2014. 1.분 차임 등의 지급이라고 변소하고 있고 위 변소가 허위라고 볼만한 자료가 없는 점, 피고인 4는 수사기관에서 피고인 1이 바지사장이고 피고인 3이 실제 소유주이기 때문에 ○○○병원에 근무하면서 피고인 3 명의의 신용카드를 사용하였다고 진술했으나(2014년 형제60392호 제2248면), 이 법정에서는 피고인 1이 월급쟁이 의사라고 진술했던 것은 병원직원들 사이에 소문이 나서 그렇게 얘기했을 뿐이라고 진술하였고, 피고인 3은 2013. 6.부터 2013. 12.경까지 자신이 피고인 1에게 임대한 ○○○병원 건물 보수공사를 위하여 △△병원 감사로 근무하다가 ○○○병원 사무국장으로 근무하던 공소외 8에게 보수공사를 위하여 사용하라고 자신의 신용카드를 주었던 적은 있으나 ○○○병원 픽업팀의 비용지출을 위하여 신용카드를 교부한 적은 없다고 한 진술(2014년 54664, 60392호 수사기록 4193면)에 비추어 피고인 3의 신용카드 사용만으로 피고인 3이 ○○○병원을 실질적으로 운영하였다고 보기 어려운 점, 피고인 1이 2013. 8.경 공소외 10, 2014. 1.경 공소외 11 등 정신과 의사와 2013. 4.경 공소외 8, 피고인 2 등 직원들을 면접하고 단독으로 채용한 점, 공소외 27은 이 법정에서 경리업무와 관련하여서는 피고인 1의 결재를 받았고, 피고인 1이 페이닥터라고 진술하였던 것은 병원 사람들로부터 그런 소문을 들었기 때문이었는데 병원 사람들이 피고인 1이 페이닥터라고 생각을 하였던 것은 피고인 1이 최종결재를 함에 있어 시간이 조금 지체되었기 때문이었다고도 진술한 점, 공소외 27은 또한 병원물품을 구매함에 있어 피고인 3의 아이디를 사용하였다고 진술하였으나 이에 관한 객관적 자료가 제출되지는 아니한 점, ○○○병원의 보호사로 근무했던 공소외 28도 피고인 2가 피고인 3만 믿는다고 입에 달고 살아 피고인 3이 ○○○병원의 실제 주인으로 생각했다고 자신의 추측을 진술하는 것에 그친 점 등에 비추어 보면, 실질적으로 피고인 3이 ○○○병원을 개설, 운영하였음이 합리적 의심의 여지가 없을 정도로 증명되었다고 보기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

2. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6

(a) Inducement for profit and providing convenience to patients (or inducement for profit and violation of the Medical Service Act);

1) Summary of the facts charged (excluding the part of violation of the Medical Service Act acknowledged under paragraph (1) of the crime at the time of sale)

On May 2013, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 had opened ○○ Hospital as the same circumstance as that of the above part of innocence 1, and sought ways to attract hospitalized patients for hospital profits.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 suggested that they provide homeless persons in Seoul Station, Young Military Station, etc. with accommodation and tobacco, etc. to provide them with various conveniences, and that they directly moved the homeless persons into ○○ Hospital by burning them on the vehicle at ○○○○ Hospital. Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 suggested that they receive insurance benefits by expanding the number of inpatientss and the period of hospitalization by means of compulsory hospitalization of them regardless of their mental state such as alcohol addiction and treatment period.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, who was employed as a guardian after being hospitalized for alcohol addiction in △△ Hospital, and was employed as a guardian for the homeless, who was attracting patients to the Seoul Station, Young Military Station, etc., as the head of the administrative office of the ○○○ Hospital, and Defendant 4 as the head of the foreign cooperation division. Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Nonindicted 1, etc., who had been hospitalized in the ○○ Hospital due to alcohol addiction, were employed as a guardian and were hospitalized in the ○○ Hospital. After employing Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Nonindicted 1, etc., who had been hospitalized at the ○○ Hospital, as the guardian, the lower court ordered the homeless to attract the homeless to the ○○○ Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “traffic”).

around December 2013, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Nonindicted 1 et al. told Nonindicted 29, who had been sleeped in the vicinity of the Seoul Station, that “I am to the ○○○ Hospital as to reduce tobacco 3 locks and daily necessities without any hospitalization expenses,” and Defendant 2 voluntarily, without the approval of the competent authority, was hospitalized into the ○○ Hospital on the slurged vehicle on which the hospital mark had been installed, and the slurged into the slurged vehicle on which the hospital mark had been marked, and the outing and outing of the hospital had not been free.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspiredd with Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 1, etc. to attract patients for profit-making purposes, such as providing transportation, etc. to Nonindicted 29, and induced patients for 87 times from June to March 2014, 201 as indicated in the attached crime sight table 1, including inducing patients for profit-making purposes.

2) Determination

A) Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

(1) The part regarding the inducement for profit to Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 36, and Nonindicted 37 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 4, etc.”)

The term "induceivement" under Article 288 of the Criminal Act means the act of inducing a person by deception or cruel means to leave from his/her free living relationship or protection relationship and moving the person to another person under the factual control of himself/herself or a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2318, May 11, 2007). Here, the term "cruel treatment" does not reach the degree of deception, but is likely to mislead the other party by cruel words and thus, it does not necessarily require that the substance of such cruel treatment is false (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2980, Feb. 27, 1996).

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is possible to recognize the fact that: (a) Nonindicted 4 et al. told that, prior to being hospitalized in ○○○ Hospital, Nonindicted 2 et al. would give up tobacco to ○○○ Hospital in a day and make it as a recipient of basic living, by giving up the board and lodging in a week; or (b) it had already been written between the aged and the aged (Nonindicted 4’s legal statement). Therefore, even if it seems that Defendant 2 et al.’s speech such as tobacco provision and accommodation provision to the aged and the elderly could not be seen as a degree of deceiving Nonindicted 4 et al., it may be said that there was any cruel declaration.

However, as above, Defendant 2, etc.: (a) hospitalized in the hospital to ○○ Hospital using subway and bus after telephone, and hospitalized in the hospital to ○○○ Hospital ( Nonindicted 37 as at the time of hospitalization on November 1, 2013); and (b) hospitalized in another hospital to ○○ Hospital to the extent that Defendant 2 transferred to ○○○○ Hospital’s free living conditions or protection; (c) hospitalized in the hospital to ○○○ Hospital to ○○○○○ Hospital (Nonindicted 34); (d) there is no room to view that Defendant 2 was hospitalized in the hospital to ○○○ Hospital’s free accommodation at ○○○○ Hospital; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Nonindicted 2 was hospitalized in the hospital to ○○○ Hospital’s free accommodation at ○○○○ Hospital (Nonindicted 24 and Nonindicted 35); and (e) Defendant 2 was hospitalized in the hospital to ○○ Hospital’s free accommodation after Nonindicted 2’s entrance without recommendation for admission to ○○ Hospital’s employees.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

(2) The part of the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the inducement of patients to provide convenience to Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 36, and Nonindicted 37

The term "induceivement" under Article 27 (3) of the Medical Service Act means the act of inducing patients to enter into a contract for medical treatment delegation with a specific medical institution or a specific medical person by deception or cruel means (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1126, May 29, 198).

In light of the fact that Non-Indicted 31 and Non-Indicted 32 stated in the indictment that Non-Indicted 33 were the introduction of persons who were accommodated in the Seoul Station, Non-Indicted 23, and Non-Indicted 34 voluntarily calls at the flag center, Non-Indicted 35, Non-Indicted 36, Non-Indicted 36, and Non-Indicted 33, Non-Indicted 33, Non-Indicted 33, and Non-Indicted 37, Non-Indicted 30 and Non-Indicted 37, on the date stated in the indictment, they were able to prove that they conspired with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 in collusion with the above patient.

If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

(3) Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 49, Nonindicted 50, Nonindicted 51, Nonindicted 52, Nonindicted 53, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 54, Nonindicted 56, Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 58, Nonindicted 59, Nonindicted 60, Nonindicted 61, Nonindicted 62, Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 64, Nonindicted 65, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 68, Nonindicted 69, Nonindicted 69, Nonindicted 70, Nonindicted 70, Nonindicted 71, Nonindicted 729, Nonindicted 73, Nonindicted 74, Nonindicted 78, and Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 78, Nonindicted 178, Nonindicted 78, Nonindicted 787, Nonindicted 79, and Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 787.

The above Defendants were not admitted to Nonindicted 12, 43, 46, 13, 56, 59, Nonindicted 63, 71, 77, 14, Nonindicted 21, 90, Nonindicted 38, 12, and 40, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 49, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 50, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 49, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 51, Nonindicted 52, Nonindicted 53, Nonindicted 54, Nonindicted 56, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 669, and Nonindicted 636, Nonindicted 665, Nonindicted 6666, Nonindicted 6666, Nonindicted 666, Nonindicted 666, and Nonindicted 8.

However, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that evidence shall be admissible only when the person making the original statement, who requires the statement at a preparatory hearing or during trial, is unable to make a statement due to death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and it is proved that the statement or preparation was made under particularly reliable circumstances. “When the statement or preparation was made under particularly reliable circumstances” refers to cases where there is little room for false entry into the contents of the statement or the preparation of the protocol or documents, and where there are specific and external circumstances to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do159, Mar. 10, 200; 205Do9561, Apr. 14, 206; 2005Do9561, Apr. 14, 2006; 2005Do31314, etc.). It is acknowledged that the statement or written statement prepared by a witness satisfies the fundamental requirement of evidence, etc.

As to the instant case, the aforementioned witness was dead (Nonindicted 40, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 60, Nonindicted 73, Nonindicted 88, and Nonindicted 95), or was confirmed as his whereabouts, he was hospitalized in a mental hospital, etc. for treatment of alcohol survival, etc. However, despite the detection of his whereabouts, some of the witnesses who were investigated in a similar manner such as the above witness is present in this court as a witness and present in the investigation agency (Nonindicted 4), or are unable to properly read the Korean language without reading the protocol (Nonindicted 33), and the police officer’s signature and affix his seal to the protocol without reading the protocol (Nonindicted 33), and there is no room to view that there is no reason to view that there is any difference in the content of the protocol as being written in the investigation agency’s testimony and its admissibility as evidence (Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 104, and Nonindicted 105).

If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

B) The part of the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the inducement of profit to Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6, and the inducement of patients

Although the Defendants led to the confession of this part of the facts charged and consented to the documentary evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the remaining facts charged except for the part found guilty is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the conviction in light of the following circumstances.

In other words, among the confessions that Nonindicted 38 et al. were encouraged to make a profit and induce patients from June 17, 2013 to March 9, 2014, Defendant 4 as witness in this court had been working for a graphic team only until December 2013. Defendant 5 had been working for the graphic team from August 2013 to July 4, 2014. Defendant 6 had no instruction from the ○○ Hospital’s staff meeting (No. 60392 et al.). Defendant 4 had no instruction from the investigation agency to 40 days before being admitted to the hospital. Defendant 2 had no instruction from the investigation agency to 30 days before being admitted to the hospital or to 40 days after being admitted to the hospital. Defendant 4 had no instruction from the investigation agency to 40 days after being admitted to the hospital. Defendant 4 had no instruction from the investigation agency to 30% of the number of patients.

B. The part on non-compliance with the patient's request for discharge against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 and the part on confinement (violation of the Mental Health Act, confinement)

1) Summary of the facts charged (excluding the part of violation of the Mental Health Act recognized under paragraph (2) of the same Article)

A) 2014Gohap532

Where a patient hospitalized as a person applies for discharge, the director of the mental medical institution, etc. shall discharge him/her without delay.

On February 3, 2014, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 accessed Nonindicted 21 in the Nowon-gu in Seoul Station, saying, “○○ Hospital would give accommodation and accommodation to the ○○ Hospital,” and induce Nonindicted 21 to the ○○ Hospital. Defendant 1, without any explanation on the procedures for the closed ward, was carried out by Nonindicted 21 without discharging Nonindicted 21, who demanded discharge from the hospital for approximately one week.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to discharge Nonindicted 21, who demanded discharge, and detained Nonindicted 21 on the closed ward, instead of immediately releasing them, and, from June to March 2014, 2013 to March 21, 2014, detained 21 inpatientss who demand discharge as stated in the annexed crime list 2.

B) 2014Gohap849

Where a patient hospitalized as a person applies for discharge, the director of the mental medical institution, etc. shall discharge him/her without delay.

Defendant 2, via Defendant 4 and Defendant 5, moved Nonindicted 2 on October 31, 2013 to ○○○ Hospital, and Defendant 1 was carried out on Nonindicted 2, who was living in the Seoul Station, without any particular explanation on the procedure for opening and opening the closed ward to Nonindicted 2, and continued to enter Nonindicted 2, who requested discharge on several occasions from December 27, 2013, without releasing Nonindicted 2.

Accordingly, Defendant 2 did not immediately discharge Nonindicted 2 who demanded discharge in collusion with Defendant 1, but detained him in a closed ward.

2) Determination

A) The part on Defendant 2’s violation of the Mental Health Act against Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2

Article 23 (2) of the Mental Health Act provides that the head of a mental medical institution or the head of a mental health sanatorium shall, without delay, discharge a patient who is a mentally ill person voluntarily hospitalized in a mental medical institution or a mental health sanatorium by submitting an application for hospitalization or admission pursuant to Article 23 (1) of the same Act, and upon receiving an application for discharge, etc. from the patient who is a mentally ill person voluntarily hospitalized in a mental medical institution or mental health sanatorium, it is reasonable to deem that the subject of a violation of the Mental Health Act punished by Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Mental Health Act in violation of the above provision may be only the head of a mental medical institution or a mental health sanatorium (In addition, even if a person is not a mentally ill person in his/her status offense, he/she may be punished as an accomplice of a person who has committed an offense of violation of each Mental Health Act, but there is no evidence

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged is not a crime, it is judged not guilty in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B) The part on the violation of the Mental Health Act by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 against Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 33, and Nonindicted 37 and the part on the confinement against Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 33, Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 2

In light of the following facts, ○○○○○○○ Hospital’s legitimate adoption of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 3’s request for discharge, i.e., Nonindicted Party 1’s request to Nonindicted Party 3 for discharge, and Nonindicted Party 1’s first time during the two months, Nonindicted Party 1’s demand for discharge. Nonindicted Party 3’s request for discharge from the hospital was rejected, and Nonindicted Party 4’s request for discharge from the hospital to Nonindicted Party 3’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s statement.

If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

C) The part on confinement and violation of the Mental Health Act with respect to Nonindicted 12, 43, 51, 53, 13, 59, 63, 66, 71, 77, 78, 14, 21, 90, 98, and 100

The Defendants’ written statements prepared by Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 59, Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 66, Nonindicted 71, Nonindicted 77, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 90, and Nonindicted 98; the police statements written by each of the Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 51, Nonindicted 53, Nonindicted 53, Nonindicted 59, Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 66, Nonindicted 71, Nonindicted 77, Nonindicted 78, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 90, Nonindicted 98, and Nonindicted 100 were not consented to as evidence; and the authenticity of the establishment was not acknowledged by the statement of the original person.

However, Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a person making a statement at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial may not make a statement due to death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and evidence exists only when it is proved that the statement or preparation was made in a particularly reliable state. On the grounds as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the statement by an investigative agency or its statement by the witness was excluded from reasonable doubt under particularly reliable circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged.

If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

(c) Fraudulentation and fraudulent receipt of insurance benefits (Fraud and violation of the National Health Insurance Act);

1) Summary of the facts charged

A) 2014Gohap532

No person shall receive insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, around May 2013, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 wished to receive insurance benefits from the Health Insurance Corporation by filing a claim with the Health Insurance Corporation for the insurance benefits of patients, as it is appropriate for the patient’s mental state and the period of hospitalization, etc., even though the aforementioned ○○ Hospital had induced the homeless persons in Seoul Station and Young Station, and had them be forced to be hospitalized for a certain period of time regardless of their mental state, such as alcohol addiction, and the treatment period.

Accordingly, around May 2013, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 fraudulently received KRW 1,532,230,650,000 for the purpose of insurance benefits as shown in the attached Table 3 from around that time, by deceiving the Victim Health Insurance Corporation of the above method, by receiving KRW 14,985,610 from the Victim Health Insurance Corporation for the non-indicted 9, etc. in return for the payment of insurance benefits to the non-indicted 9, etc. in May 2013, and then received the money unlawfully from around that time to February 2014.

B) 2014Gohap849

No person shall receive insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, around May 2013, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 wished to receive insurance benefits from the Health Insurance Corporation by filing a claim with the Health Insurance Corporation for the insurance benefits of patients, as it is appropriate for the patient’s mental state and duration of hospitalization, even though they had induced the homeless in Seoul Station and Young Station to be forced to be hospitalized for a certain period of time regardless of their mental state such as alcohol addiction and the treatment period.

Accordingly, around May 7, 2014, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 accused the Victim Health Insurance Corporation by claiming KRW 6,562,800 under the name of medical expenses, etc. for in-patients against Nonindicted 2, by deceiving the Victim Health Insurance Corporation, and illegally received the aforementioned amount claimed from the Health Insurance Corporation around the following month.

2) Determination

In light of the aforementioned facts as stated in Paragraph 1-B of the acquittal part, it is difficult to view the ○○ Hospital as a hospital established and operated twice in violation of the Medical Service Act. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the ○○ Hospital classified the patients to be hospitalized into open and closed disease ward and closed disease ward with a certain standard after measuring the blood alcohol concentration, etc. upon hospitalization for the patients. The patients hospitalized into the ○○ Hospital on the day of hospitalization or following the day of hospitalization, and thereafter, the medical doctors of the ○○ Hospital, such as Nonindicted 11 and 10, were designated as the principal doctor of each patient during the hospitalization period. In light of the fact that the doctor in charge took part in the examination and treatment of the patients during the hospitalization period, and the medical records for the patients were prepared, there is insufficient evidence to prove otherwise as to the fact that Defendant 1 received insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means.

3) Conclusion

If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

3. Defendant 3

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) The inducement of patients for profit and convenience (for profit and violation of the Medical Service Act)

On May 2013, Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 opened ○○ Hospital as the same circumstance as the first clause of the above acquittal part, and sought ways to attract hospitalized patients for hospital profits.

Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 suggested that they provide homeless persons in Seoul Station, Young Military Station, etc. with accommodation and tobacco, etc. to provide them with various conveniences, and that they directly moved the homeless persons into ○○ Hospital by burning them on the vehicle at ○○○○ Hospital. Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 suggested that they receive insurance benefits by expanding the number of inpatientss and the period of hospitalization by means of compulsory hospitalization, regardless of the state of mental illness such as alcohol addiction of the homeless and the treatment period.

Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 were employed as a guardian after being hospitalized for alcohol addiction at △△ Hospital, and were employed as a guardian, and had been attracting patients for the homeless in Seoul Station, Young Station, etc., as the head of the administrative office of ○○○ Hospital, and Defendant 4 as the head of the foreign cooperation division. Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Nonindicted 1, etc., who had been hospitalized in the ○○ Hospital, were employed as a guardian and were hospitalized for alcohol addiction at that time, employed Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Nonindicted 1, etc., who had been hospitalized at the ○○ Hospital, as the guardian, and led the homeless to attract the homeless to the ○○ Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “traffic”).

around December 2013, Defendant 4, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 1, etc. told Nonindicted 29, who had been sleeped in the vicinity of the Seoul Station, that “I am to the ○○○ Hospital as to reduce tobacco 3 locks and daily necessities without any hospitalization expenses,” and Defendant 2 voluntarily, without the approval of the competent authority, arbitrarily fluorddddled light light light, etc., installed the hospital mark, and moved Nonindicted 29 to the ○○ Hospital by burning Nonindicted 29 to the ○○ Hospital, and was hospitalized in the closed ward where the outing and the outing of the hospital were not free.

As a result, Defendant 3 conspiredd with Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 1, and conspired with Nonindicted 29 to attract patients for profit-making purposes, such as providing transportation, etc. to Nonindicted 29, and induced patients for profit-making purposes on 87 occasions from June 2013 to March 2014, as indicated in attached Table 1.

2) The part concerning fraud and fraudulent receipt of insurance benefits (Fraud, violation of the National Health Insurance Act)

No person shall receive insurance benefits by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, around May 2013, Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 wished to receive insurance benefits from the Health Insurance Corporation by filing a claim with the Health Insurance Corporation for the insurance benefits of patients, as it is appropriate for the patient’s mental state and the period of hospitalization, etc., even though the aforementioned ○○ Hospital had induced the homeless persons in Seoul Station and Young Station, and had them be forced to be hospitalized for a certain period of time regardless of their mental state such as alcohol addiction, etc., and the above ○○ Hospital was normally established and operated under Defendant 1.

Accordingly, around May 2013, Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 fraudulently received KRW 1,532,230,650 in total under the name of insurance benefits as shown in the attached Table 2 from around that time until February 2014, by deceiving the Victim Health Insurance Corporation, by receiving KRW 14,985,610 in the name of insurance benefits for the non-indicted 9 in patients, including the patient non-indicted 9, etc., from the Victim Health Insurance Corporation.

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged is premised on the premise that Defendant 3 was the person who actually established and operated the ○○ Hospital. The difficulty in deeming ○○ Hospital as a hospital established and operated twice by Defendant 3 in violation of the Medical Service Act is the same as the description No. 1-B of the part of innocence. Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus, is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Kim Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)