1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants and the part against Defendant E in the judgment of the second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles, the establishment of a medical institution by non-medical persons related to X-X convalescent and the fraud, the X convalescent hospital is a hospital duly established and operated by N Medical Consumer Cooperatives, not a office-general hospital, and the Defendant borrowed the hospital acquisition fund at D’s request, but did not participate in the operation of the hospital. Therefore, the crime is not established.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this portion by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the facts.

2) The first sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing [the first sentence of the lower court’s punishment of violation of the Medical Service Act due to the establishment of each non-medical person’s medical institution, violation of the Medical Service Act due to the absence of electronic records, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (two years of imprisonment for each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant E1’s establishment of a medical institution and fraud of non-medical persons related to X-X convalescent, the Defendant was aware of the hospital to be acquired, and the Defendant was working as the executive branch of the above hospital and provided consultation about the patient’s entrance and discharge of the patient, and did not actively participate in the process of claiming hospital establishment, operation, and medical care benefits. Furthermore, on April 1, 2013, Defendant E was retired from office on the ground that he was employed on a monthly salary for about 14 months from around April 1, 2013, and he did not know of the claim for the subsequent medical care benefits. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: the imprisonment of one year and six months, and the second instance court: the imprisonment of one year and one year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, this is necessary for the general public who is not qualified as medical personnel (hereinafter “non-medical personnel”).