The judgment below

The guilty portion against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, C, and D1: Defendant A: misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the Defendant did not conspired with AG to commit an offense in violation of the Immigration Control Act and the Immigration Control Act.

(2) Defendant B: misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the Defendant is a corporation AF (hereinafter “AF”) registered as a foreign patient attraction businessman.

(3) Defendant C, D: mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle (in preparation of a written opinion, prior understanding or presumption of intention as the nominal owner was made).

Exclusion of Unjustity

B. The prosecutor (not guilty part of the judgment of the lower court)’s opinion on Defendant E, F, and G preparation constitutes a medical certificate as stipulated in Article 17 of the Medical Service Act. However, the above Defendants did not directly examine the patient and drafted it. However, the Defendants invited foreigners to enter the Republic of Korea by unlawful means, such as entering false facts or providing false personal reference, and filed a false request for a visa issuance certificate.

3. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby acquitted this part.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The first prosecutor found guilty of the lower court (the part on Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) 1 of the charge against Defendant B, and applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the applicable provisions on attracting foreign patients without registration under Articles 88 and 27-2(1) of the Medical Service Act “Article 88 and Article 27-2(2) of the Medical Service Act”.

Since this Court changed the subject of adjudication by permitting it, this part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.