The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (2 million won suspension of sentence) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) did not exempt himself from the charges.

2) The Defendant provided personal contributions to prevent the socially weak from receiving medical treatment due to the economic burden, and thus, it is not a “for-profit purposes” and “for-profit purposes.”

3) The Defendant reported the public question of the Association of Medical Doctors with respect to the public health and welfare father and did not constitute a violation of the Medical Service Act.

I think, there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant's act is not a crime.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, the Defendant did not collect the Defendant’s personal contributions from the holders of the H Social Welfare Foundation (hereinafter “the Foundation”), among the patients who were admitted to Korea Council members, from the holders of the cards issued by the H Social Welfare Foundation (hereinafter “the Foundation”). The Foundation of this case paid the Defendant’s personal contributions by depositing the amount not paid by the patients into the Han Council account of this case each month. The Defendant may recognize the fact of donation to the Foundation under the pretext of support payment (see, e.g., 162 of the investigation record). This is the fact that the Defendant paid the amount equivalent to 103% or 104% of the amount paid by the Foundation of this case to the Foundation of this case and the patient members of this case, and the Defendant was exempted from the Defendant’s personal contributions, as the result of the exemption of the Defendant’s personal contributions.

It is reasonable to view it.

2) The Defendant whether the Defendant was for profit-making purposes is one’s own interest for the socially weak.