logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.24 2016노3864
의료법위반등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A 4 years of imprisonment, Defendant B 3 years of imprisonment, Defendant C 6 months of imprisonment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, and C1) was erroneous (a) (the violation of the Medical Service Act following the establishment of the Nwon who is a medical institution and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) that was acquired by receiving care benefits expenses from the National Health Insurance Corporation while operating the Nwon who is a medical institution)] Defendant A did not establish the said hospital in collusion with O, B, etc., and did not participate in the process of receiving care benefits expenses from the National Health Insurance Corporation while operating the said hospital.

Nevertheless, the lower court, by misunderstanding the facts, established a National Assembly member from February 18, 201 to December 29, 201 in collusion with O, B, etc. without Defendant A’s intent, and determined that the National Health Insurance Corporation received medical care benefits from the National Health Insurance Corporation and acquired it by fraud.

B) The facts charged in the instant case that Defendant A, without a doctor, was finally and conclusively sentenced to a violation of the Medical Service Act with respect to the establishment of the aforementioned “Wic Hospital”, “YA convalescent Hospital”, “AC convalescent Hospital”, “AC convalescent Hospital”, and “AE convalescent Hospital” (hereinafter the above five hospitals), and that Defendant A received care benefits by receiving care benefits benefits from the National Health Insurance Corporation and receiving care benefits from the National Health Insurance Corporation, may be deemed to have been prosecuted for the same case as the facts charged in the final judgment, on the ground that the facts charged in the instant case are identical to those of the final judgment.

Therefore, the defendant A.

arrow