All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to Defendant A’s violation of the Medical Service Act, considering the legislative purport of Articles 6 subparag. 3 and 30(2)1 of the former Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 8366 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same) that allows the establishment of only one medical institution, in a case where a doctor who already established and operated a medical institution in his/her own name employs another doctor, and directly opens another medical institution in his/her own name and directly provides medical services at the medical institution, the case is limited to the case where a doctor who already established and operated the medical institution, employs another doctor, and directly provides medical services at the medical institution.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do256 Decided October 23, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4652 Decided September 25, 2008, etc.). The lower court rejected Defendant A’s assertion on the grounds of appeal that: (a) Defendant A had already established and operated the Ipinary Department at H in Gunsan City; (b) had already installed and provided a patient directly by a member of the Council in the name of another medical institution; (c) the violation of the Medical Service Act is a violation of the Medical Service Act; and (d) the violation of the Medical Service Act does not terminate the crime at the time of the first medical institution’s establishment; (c) Defendant A continued to engage in a medical act in the second medical institution; (d) Defendant A was guilty of this part of the facts charged; and (e) the prosecution of this case was instituted after the expiration of the statute of limitations period counting from the date of the first establishment of K; and (e) this part of the facts charged should be acquitted.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above legal doctrine and the record, Defendant A's above judgment of the court below.