The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant borrowed the name of F, who received the consideration, and did not actively participate in the establishment or operation of a hospital. The lower court recognized that the Defendant committed a crime stated in the facts charged in the instant case in collusion with non-medical personnel, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. If a medical person who determined the misapprehension of the legal principle in collusion to establish a medical institution by a person, other than a medical person or a medical corporation, processed the case, it constitutes a joint principal offender of a violation of Article 66 subparag. 3 and 30(2) of the Medical Service Act (amended by Act No. 8366 of Apr. 11, 2007) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7245, Feb. 25, 2005) (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7245, Feb. 25, 2005). If two or more persons are co-offenders in the joint processing of a crime, the conspiracy is not required under the law, and if two or more persons jointly intend to commit a crime through the joint processing of a crime, the conspiracy relationship is established in order or impliedly, and insofar as such conspiracy is achieved, the person who did not directly participate in the act is held liable as a joint principal offender.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do1706 delivered on September 12, 1997, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was able to establish and operate a medical institution under the name of the incorporated foundation in return for payment to the president of F, a foundation (the only director with representative authority), who is not entitled to establish and operate a medical institution, as stated in the facts charged in this case.