logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.07.20 2018노1079
의료법위반
Text

The lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendants did not know that the money that the Defendants gave N was a loan, not an investment, and that N would use the money in an illegal massage practice.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Notwithstanding the fact-finding that the Defendants could not establish a massage shop without being recognized by the competent authority as qualified as a massage club, the Defendants, without qualification, did not intend to operate a marina shop and gain profits therefrom by investing shares in the marina shop run by N (the indictment of detention on March 2, 2017).

Defendants and D conspired to divide profits in the operation of Thai State Marina business with the trade name of the Seogu-gu AG and the second floor AH by investing 10% of each 10% of the shares together with N.

From January 201 to June 2016, Defendants conspired with N to employ an employee, etc., who is an unqualified person as a massage club in the above AH, as a marina, and had the employee find out the place, perform massage in a manner of cutting off the body or guns of customers by using his hand, and received the price, etc., the Defendants operated a massage clinic without qualification for massage.

B. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendants invested KRW 10 million in an illegal massage practice operated by N. Based on its stated reasoning.

In view of the facts charged of this case, the lower court convicted the Defendant.

(c)

1) The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Code satisfies the subjective and objective requirements of criminal practice through functional control by the intention of joint processing and the intention of the joint principal offender.

arrow