1. Of the judgment below, Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the punishment (a punishment of two years and six months and a fine of 1.5 million won for Defendant A, two years of imprisonment for Defendant B, and fine of 3 million won for Defendant medical corporation) is so unreasonable that it is too unreasonable (the Defendants asserted that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, but they withdrawn the above assertion on the third trial date). 2. The judgment ex officio (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the part of fraud against Defendant A and Defendant B) is ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants.

In the case of the charge against Defendant A and B, the prosecutor applied Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act to “Article 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act” as “Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act,” among the facts charged against Defendant A and B, the prosecutor applied for amendment to the indictment with the original facts charged concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud. Since the court changed the subject of the judgment following the permission, the judgment of the court below became unable to maintain the part on the Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the part on the fraud and the part on Defendant B as to Defendant B.

3. The Defendant A, the representative of the Defendant medical corporation E, was using a general house as a hospitalization facility without obtaining permission for change of major facilities, such as a hospitalization room.

Although Defendant A and medical corporations recognize this part of the crime and reflects the mistake, the above crime is intended to establish a sound medical order and protect people's health.