beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged was the chairman of the Association C, an incorporated medical corporation, and D was the director of the Medical Business Headquarters of the Association.
D Lending the name of the said association to E who is not entitled to establish a medical institution, and made it possible to establish and operate the hospital, and agreed with the above E to receive KRW 2.5 million per month in return for the name lending from the above E.
D On May 6, 2010, by lending the name to the above E, the said E established a “G Hospital” at the place of business located in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si and had the said E operate the G Hospital until October 13, 201.
As a result, D lent a license to the above E to establish a medical institution.
As above, the Defendant: (a) knew that the Defendant intended to lend the name of the said incorporated association to E to allow it to establish a medical institution; and (b) provided that D may take the prescribed procedures, thereby aiding and abetting the above violation of the Medical Service Act.
2. The nature of a crime does not vary depending on whether the judgment D is entitled to establish a medical institution to E;
(1) In light of the legislative intent of the Medical Service Act and the provisions on the qualification and license of the medical person, the term "loan of license" under Article 66 subparagraph 1 of the Medical Service Act means the lending of license by another person even though he/she knows that he/she is an owner of the license and intends to perform a medical act as if he/she is the nominal owner of the license. Therefore, the Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3468 Decided July 22, 2005 that "the lending of license includes not only where the other party to the license is an unqualified but also where he/she is a qualified medical person." This is insufficient to recognize the lending of license to a medical institution by means of health stand, the police interrogation protocol (or a copy thereof) for E, as to whether the defendant was aware of the fact that the medical institution was established.