The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The abstract of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) and the language and text of the Medical Service Act concerning the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and the Medical Service Act are not interpreted as motor vehicle insurance medical fees, and thus, no qualification medical institution is entitled to file a claim for motor vehicle insurance medical fees.

However, the Defendant, a person who established a non-qualified medical institution, committed the act as if the medical institution was duly established, and caused the victim insurance companies to make a mistake in the decision on the payment of motor vehicle insurance medical fees, which constitutes deception of fraud, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the non-medical person without qualification for establishment established in violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act, if the medical personnel with a license provides medical treatment to victims of traffic accident patients, etc., and the insurance company, etc. file a claim for motor vehicle insurance medical fees under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, barring any special circumstance, the insurance company, etc. shall not refuse the payment thereof. Thus, the circumstance that the medical institution which provided the victim of traffic accident, such as the victim of the accident, was established in violation of the above Medical Service Act is not a ground that may affect the duty to pay motor vehicle insurance medical fees with the said victim or the relevant medical institution, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the relevant medical institution filed a claim for payment without notifying it to the insurance company, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do17699, Apr. 10, 2018).