Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Court-style (prosecutions) and the highest court-style (public trial)

Law Firm LLC et al.

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Gohap868 Decided February 17, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and fine of 3,00,000 won, by imprisonment for three years and fine of 7,000,000 won and by imprisonment for three years and fine of 7,00,000 won, and by imprisonment for two years and fine of 7,00,000 won, respectively.

If the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, each of the above fines of KRW 100,000 shall be confined in the Labor House for the period converted into one day.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above imprisonment for two years shall be suspended for Defendant 1, and for Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) for three years.

No. 16 of the seized evidence shall be confiscated from Defendant 1, and No. 17, 19, 29, 29, from Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2).

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s assertion

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the forfeiture) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2)

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

㈎ 이 사건 ○○병원(이하 ‘○○병원’이라고만 한다)은 피고인 3(대판:피고인 2)이 개설, 운영한 의료기관일 뿐 피고인 3(대판:피고인 2)과 피고인 2(대판:피고인 1)가 동업으로 개설, 운영한 의료기관이 아님에도 원심은 사실을 오인하거나 법리를 오해하여 비의료인의 의료기관개설로 인한 의료법위반죄와 요양급여비용 및 의료급여비용 편취로 인한 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)죄를 유죄로 인정하였다(피고인 2(대판:피고인 1)의 변호인은 의료급여비용의 경우 지방자치단체가 지급하는 것이므로 피해자 국민건강보험공단에 대한 사기죄의 객체가 되지 않는다고도 주장한다).

㈏ 피고인들은 공소외 16이 피부비만센터를 운영하면서 영리 목적으로 무면허 의료행위를 하는 데 공모하거나 가담한 사실이 없음에도 원심은 사실을 오인하거나 법리를 오해하여 이 부분 보건범죄단속에관한특별조치법위반(부정의료업자)죄를 유죄로 인정하였다.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below against the defendants (the defendant 2 (the defendant 1), three years of imprisonment, five million won of fine, and three years of fine, five million won of fine, and five million won of fine against the defendant 3 (the defendant 2) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor’s assertion

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Although Defendant 1, who is non-medical person, operated the skin room separately from the building of ○○ Hospital, was able to recognize the fact that Defendant 1 committed an unlicensed medical act and conspired to divide the profits therefrom, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of violating the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (unlawful medical person) among the facts charged against the Defendants.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each of the above types of punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendants is unfair as it is too unfortunate.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principles or misconception of facts by Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1), Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2)

(1) On the violation of the Medical Service Act

An act of establishing a medical institution prohibited by Article 33(2) and Article 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act means that a non-medical person treats facilities and human resources of the medical institution from a leading point of view, such as recruitment and management, report on establishment, implementation of medical business, raising of necessary funds, and reversion of the operational performance thereof. It is reasonable to interpret that a non-medical person constitutes an act of establishing a medical institution prohibited by the Medical Service Act in cases where even if a non-medical person engaged in the same business with a medical person, it can be evaluated that a non-medical person led to the establishment and operation of the medical institution (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do2629, Oct. 27, 201; 2003Du1493, Sept. 23, 2003).

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following circumstances are revealed.

Defendant 1 did not merely assist the acquisition of ○○○ Hospital by Defendant 2 (Seoul: Defendant 2) but took charge of the affairs of acquisition. In other words, Nonindicted 1, who actually operated ○○ Hospital, the telegraph of ○○○ Hospital, requested Nonindicted 2 to transfer the ○○ Hospital to Nonindicted 2, who is in charge of consulting on the hospital. Nonindicted 2, who posted the advertisement on the transfer of ○○○ Hospital, on the Internet. The above advertisement was reported by Defendant 2 (large: Defendant 1) and the agreement between Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 2 (Large: Defendant 1), and the agreement on the transfer and takeover of ○○○ Hospital was reached between Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 2 (Large: Defendant 1). The transfer and takeover of the comprehensive agreement on the preparation of ○○○ Hospital was made to Nonindicted 2, the transferee of ○○ Hospital, stating that the agreement was signed by the transferee of ○○ Hospital, and the agreement was made to the transferee of ○○ Hospital, and the agreement was made to the transferee of ○○ Hospital.

In the process of opening the ○○ Hospital, Defendant 2 (Seoul: Defendant 1) took part in a deep night. Defendant 2 (Seoul: Defendant 1) introduced Nonindicted 3, who was the name of opening the ○ Hospital, to Defendant 3 (Seoul: Defendant 2) and concluded the building lease agreement on the ○ Hospital as an agent of Nonindicted 3. Meanwhile, Defendant 3 (Large-board: Defendant 2) cited Nonindicted 4 as part of the fund for opening the ○ Hospital. On the other hand, Defendant 4 (Large-board: Defendant 1) was the long time of opening the ○ Hospital. On the other hand, Defendant 3 (Large-board: Defendant 2) made a statement that Nonindicted 4 was not aware of Nonindicted 4 from the police, and Nonindicted 4 transferred Nonindicted 5 to Nonindicted 5, 5, and paid Nonindicted 30 million won to Nonindicted 5, 300 million won from the proceeds of selling the ○ Hospital to ○○ Hospital, and Defendant 2 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) made a confirmation that he was Defendant 3 and Defendant 3: Defendant 2.

In the process of operating the ○○ Hospital, it is difficult to view that the role of Defendant 2 (Defendant 1): (a) was simply on the level of the office director or the administrative director in charge of the administration affairs of the hospital; (b) from August 2, 2011, immediately after the opening of the ○ Hospital, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1): (c) deposited a considerable amount of funds from the deposit account in the name of Nonindicted 6’s wife to the deposit account of the ○○ Hospital; and (d) used the funds for the hospital operation; (b) Defendant 2 (Defendant 1): (c) released cash from the physical card issued in the name of Nonindicted 3, the name of the establishment of the ○○ Hospital; (d) retired from the ○○ Hospital’s office to the ○○ Hospital’s general account; (e) retired from office to the ○○ Hospital’s general account; and (e) made Nonindicted 2 (Defendant 1: Defendant 7) and the head of the ○ Hospital’s office testimony to the Defendant 8’s general account.

The letter of hand-over, which appears to have been prepared to perform the duties of the staff in charge of the accounts at the ○○ Hospital’s hospital, states that “the director (the director (the defendant 2: hereinafter the same appears to be referred to as the defendant 1; hereinafter the same shall apply) must be opened by taking the fry, coffee, and paper cup,” as one of the daily business, states that “the details of the revenue of the fribs Center shall be separately prepared, and then the director shall be given approval after obtaining the approval of the fribsium,” and one of the monthly business affairs, states that “documents must be prepared to pay the fribs to the director on the pay day after obtaining the approval of the fribsing incentive,” and “the fribs that the fribs shall exceed the thickness of the director for the fri

We also participated in the claim suit against Non-Indicted 11 Co. 3 and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2). The ○ Hospital directly concluded a contract to purchase the diameter of KRW 25 million from Non-Indicted 12 Co. 12 Co., Ltd. and directly concluded the contract to purchase the diameter of KRW 13). On the other hand, Non-Indicted 13 (△△△) sent by Non-Indicted 13 to the ○○ Hospital in connection with ○○ Hospital’s website hosting and extension of the domain name, referring to the letter of facsimile stating “Defendant 2 (Defendant 1: the Chief Director of Defendant 14).”

㉳ 피고인 2(대판:피고인 1)는 ○○병원의 양수인으로 공소외 5를 물색하고, 공소외 5의 대리인 공소외 14와 양도양수계약을 직접 체결하는 등 ○○병원을 양도하는 업무도 주도적으로 처리하였다. 이와 관련하여 계약서상 양도인으로 되어 있는 공소외 3은 경찰에서 ‘양도에 관한 모든 권한을 피고인 2(대판:피고인 1)에게 위임하였고, 양도계약서도 피고인 2(대판:피고인 1)가 작성하였다’라고 주15) 진술하였고, 피고인 3(대판:피고인 2)은 경찰에서 ○○병원의 정확한 양도금액을 알지 못한다는 취지로 진술하기도 주16) 하였다.

㉴ 2013. 5. 30. ○○병원이 공소외 5에게 양도되고 2013. 6. 4. 대표자 변경신고까지 마쳐짐으로써 피고인 2(대판:피고인 1)가 더 이상 ○○병원에 근무하지 않게 된 뒤에도, 피고인 2(대판:피고인 1)는 2013. 6. 13. 공소외 15 등 근로자들이 임금체불로 고발한 것과 관련하여 중부지방고용노동청 인천북부지청에 피진정인 대리인으로 출석하여 조사를 주17) 받았고, 공소외 5에 대한 양수도대금지급청구 및 형사고소에 관한 소송위임계약을 공소외 3의 대리인 자격에서 주18) 체결하였다.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the lower court’s conclusion that found Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) guilty of violating the Medical Service Act on Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) was not merely employed by Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) and did not serve as an employee of the ○○ Hospital, but at least can be evaluated as leading in the establishment and operation of the ○○ Hospital in the position of Defendant 3 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) and its partner. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s conclusion that found Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) guilty

(2) On the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(1) As long as the ○○ Hospital was established in violation of Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act as seen above, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1), and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) claiming expenses for benefits as if the ○ Hospital had been duly established in the course of operating the ○ Hospital, and received KRW 1,630,560,050 from the National Health Insurance Corporation as medical care institutions under the Medical Service Act, and KRW 206,30,302,320 from the National Health Insurance Corporation, by deceiving and receiving medical care expenses, constitutes fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do6910, Jul. 22, 2016). Under the premise that the ○○ Hospital was a medical institution lawfully established in the ○○ Hospital, the allegation in this part of the judgment of conviction by the lower court is without merit.

However, in the case of fraudulentation of medical benefits costs, the head of a local government having jurisdiction over the place of residence of a beneficiary (Article 5(1)), expenses for medical benefits shall be borne by the medical benefits fund established in a City/Do (Articles 10 and 25), and the head of a local government shall entrust the Health Insurance Evaluation Institute with the affairs of examining and coordinating the claim for expenses for benefits during the duties concerning medical benefits to the National Health Insurance Corporation (Article 33(2) and Article 20(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Article 33(2) of the same Act and Article 20(1) and (2) of the same Enforcement Decree). In full, it is reasonable to deem that the subject to the rights and duties related to medical benefits costs is a competent local government. Therefore, even if the party to deception and the dispositive entity of property are the National Health Insurance Corporation, the occurrence of property damage through fraudulentation of medical benefits costs should be deemed to be each local government. The court below found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

However, in case where it is proved that there is a difference between the victim in the facts charged and the victim in the indictment as stated in the indictment is different, the accused should be found guilty by disclosing the victim in the indictment and the actual victim other than the victim in the indictment ex officio without the amendment process, unless the identity of the accused is disturbed and substantial disadvantage is harmed by the defendant's exercise of his right to defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6878, Aug. 23, 2002). According to the legal evaluation on whom the victim can be viewed as the victim in this part of the indictment, even if the competent local government recognizes the victim as the victim in this part of the fraud crime, it cannot be said that there is any substantial disadvantage to the victim in the exercise of the right to defense of the victim in this part of the indictment. Thus, with respect to the crime of fraud of medical care costs, each non-indicted local government is

(3) As to the violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers)

Defendant 2 (In the first instance court: Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (In the second instance court: Defendant 2) asserted the same as the grounds for appeal on this part; however, the lower court found Defendant 2 (in the first instance court’s judgment, Defendant 1) guilty of Defendant 2 (in the first instance court’s judgment, Defendant 2: Defendant 1)’s assertion that Nonindicted 16 had been aware of the fact that Nonindicted 16 had a separate operation of the part-time care center at the ○○ Hospital building of this case and that the intent was not performed at the above part-time care center; Defendant 16 had a consultation on the distribution of operating profits with Nonindicted 16; Defendant 3 (in the first instance court: Defendant 2) was also aware of the fact that Nonindicted 16 had operated the part-time care center separately; Defendant 2 (in the first instance court’s judgment: Defendant 1) and Defendant 16 (in the first instance court’s judgment, Defendant 2 (in the first instance court’s judgment and the second instance court’s judgment).

In addition to the above circumstances revealed by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances revealed by the same evidence, i.e., the assistant nurse, i.e., Nonindicted 17, who worked with Nonindicted 16, worked as an assistant nurse at the ○○ Hospital Support Center without any separate interview with Nonindicted 16’s proposal, and Nonindicted 16 operated the medical equipment in person, and Nonindicted 16, who was in charge of the operation of Nonindicted 16, stated that the skin Support Center was not subject to any instruction or supervision from ○○ Hospital, and that there was no particular circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement. 7) The lower court’s determination on the fact that Nonindicted 17, who was in charge of the head of the ○ Hospital from August 1, 2011 to April 30, 2012, was justifiable in that it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as seen above, and that the Defendants did not jointly appear to have been distributed to Nonindicted 16, an employee at the ○○ Hospital’s bar.

B. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Before the prosecutor's judgment on this part of the grounds for appeal, the part of the judgment of the court below that acquitted could no longer be maintained, since the prosecutor's allegation of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is still meaningful in relation to the facts charged as above, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that Defendant 1 was employed by Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) and Defendant 2 (Defendant 2). This court permitted this on the second trial date on June 27, 2016 and changed the subject of the judgment. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below's judgment on the ground that the prosecutor's allegation of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is still meaningful in relation to the changed facts charged. Thus, this decision shall be made within the scope related to the changed facts charged.

If a doctor acted in collusion with a non-medical person for the purpose of profit-making, the act constitutes Article 5 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes. Furthermore, the purpose of profit-making under the above Article is to obtain wide economic benefits, and there is no need for a person who engages in non-licensed medical treatment to correspond with the person to whom such economic benefits accrue or the person who manages the non-licensed medical treatment (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2903, Sept. 5, 2003, etc.).

Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the following circumstances are revealed: ① Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) was proposed to work directly at the skin room in order to promote the operation of the skin room which was left unattended after Nonindicted 16; and lastly, Defendant 1 was allowed to use the name of “○○ Hospital (Li, Non-Party 1),” and ② Defendant 1 was started to work in the skin room from June 2012 to November 7, 2012, Defendant 1 was reported to the specialized department of ○○ Hospital; ③ Defendant 1 was not permanently posted to the hospital of ○○; Defendant 2 did not have been posted to the hospital of ○○; Defendant 1 was also reported to the general account of Non-Party 1’s non-Party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s medical practice; and Defendant 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s name and non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s medical practice.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without any judgment on the allegation of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below as to the violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (unlawful Medical Business Operator) and the violation of the Medical Service Act. However, the part concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) should be reversed. The part concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (including the part concerning acquittal in the reason) should be reversed, and the prosecutor's appeal is justified.

The summary of the facts constituting the crime and its evidence recognized by this court is as follows. Except for the addition of the summary of the following evidences, the facts constituting the crime of the court below and the summary of the evidence are as stated in each corresponding column of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

【Revised Crime】

2. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

In the second floor of the building of ○○ Hospital in this case for commercial purposes, the Defendants employed Defendant 2 (Madle board: Defendant 1), Defendant 3 (Madle board: Defendant 2), Defendant 1 and assistant nurse Nonindicted 19, and Nonindicted 21 on the part of the assistant manager Nonindicted Party 21, and conspired for medical treatment in return.

Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 19 and Nonindicted 21 on June 15, 2012, carried out medical treatment in the above skin room with Nonindicted 23 using medical equipment, such as shot gas radar installed in that room, and received medical treatment costs of KRW 50,00 from around that time to May 13, 2013, Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 19 and Nonindicted 21, carried out 6,54,500 won in total, as shown in the annexed crime list (2), and received 36,54,500 won in return.

3. Joint principal offenders committed by Defendant 2 (In the case of a substitute board: Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (In the case of a substitute board: Defendant 2);

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes and fraud;

A medical institution established by a non-medical person in violation of the Medical Service Act may not claim expenses for medical care benefits and medical care benefits prescribed in the National Health Insurance Act.

Nevertheless, from July 5, 2011 to June 1, 2013, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) requested the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to submit specifications of health care benefit costs and medical care expense statement to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service to review the Defendants’ operation of ○ Hospital by sharing the roles as described in the above paragraph (a). Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) received medical care benefit costs of KRW 1,630,560,050 and medical care benefit costs of KRW 206,30,302,320 from victims by receiving medical care benefit costs of KRW 1,630,560,050 from the National Health Insurance Service and receiving medical care expense of KRW 206,30,302,320 from the victims of non-contentious crimes.

【Abstract of Additional Evidence】

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 19 and Nonindicted 22

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

[Defendant 1] Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, the main sentence of Article 27(1) of the Medical Service Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

[Defendant 2 (Madern: Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 (Madern: Defendant 2)] Article 5 subparag. 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes; Article 27(1) main sentence of the Medical Service Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (generally, the operation of illegal medical care business; the concurrent imposition of fines after choosing a limited term of imprisonment); Articles 87(1)2 and 33(2) of the Medical Service Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the establishment of non-medical institutions; the choice of imprisonment); Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 347(1) and 30 (generalation of medical care benefit costs); Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act of the same Act (the selection of punishment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

[Attachment of concurrent crimes by imprisonment and fine provided for in the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Business Operator) as stated in paragraph (2) of the holding that the punishment of punishment is heavier than the punishment of imprisonment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

[Defendant 1, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)] Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

[Defendants] Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

[Defendant 1, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)] Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

[Defendant 1, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)] Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

[Defendants] Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant 1

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for at least one year, and a fine of at least 500,000 won, but not exceeding five million won;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 2 (Business Unlicensed Medical Practice) of Illegal Medical Practice>

[Special Convicts] Mitigation elements (in the case of participation in the crime due to the relationship of employment or business instruction)

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to two years;

(c) Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment, two years of stay of execution, and three million won of fine;

The crime of this case is committed 605 times for the purpose of profit-making and is not suitable for the quality of the crime. However, the fact relevance of the defendant's non-licensed medical practice is recognized and wrong is divided, and there is no record of the crime, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has received any additional profit in addition to the amount corresponding to the salary in the employment relationship, which led to the crime of this case, and actually led to the crime of this case in the employment relationship, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has received any additional profit in addition to the amount corresponding to the salary, the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor equivalent to the lower limit of the recommended range according to the sentencing guidelines of the

2. Defendant 2 (Defendant 1)

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 3 years up to 45 years, and fines of up to 15 million won up to 15 million won;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers)

[Determination of Punishment] Types 2 (Business Unlicensed Medical Practice) of Illegal Medical Practice>

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months to three years;

2) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud (Basic Crimes)

[Determination of Punishment] Fraud> General Fraud> Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years to six years

3) Violation of the Medical Service Act: Non-establishment of sentencing criteria;

4) Scope of final recommended punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crime of violation of the Medical Service Act for which no sentencing guidelines are set are set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the lower

(c) Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment and fine of seven million won;

Defendant established and operated a medical institution even if it is not a medical personnel, led the criminal act of deceiving medical care benefit costs and medical care costs, and led non-medical personnel to repeat unlicensed medical practice for a long time for profit. Such criminal act is highly likely to cause harm to the national health, as well as to endanger the financial foundation of the national health insurance system, and is highly harmful to the overall order of medical order, and is not easy to commit a crime. There is no recovery of the Defendant’s property damage from the criminal act until the trial. Considering the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor equivalent to the degree of responsibility is inevitable.

However, the punishment of imprisonment shall be set at the lower limit of the recommended range according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the ○○ Hospital performed medical acts by the actual doctor, there is no evidence to know that excessive claims for medical care benefit costs, etc. were made, the defendant's actual profits acquired compared to the amount recognized as legally acquired, and there is no record of punishment heavier than the fine.

3. Defendant 3 (Defendant 2)

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and June, from June to June, and a fine of 500,000 to 7.5 million won;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1) Violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (Unlawful Medical Service Providers)

[Determination of Punishment] Types 2 (Business Unlicensed Medical Practice) of Illegal Medical Practice>

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months to three years;

2) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud (Basic Crimes)

[Determination of Punishment] Fraud> General Fraud> Type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years to six years

3) Violation of the Medical Service Act: Non-establishment of sentencing criteria;

4) Scope of final recommended punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crime of violation of the Medical Service Act for which no sentencing guidelines are set are set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the lower

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, suspension of execution for three years, and fine for seven million won;

The defendant, as a medical person, established and operated the instant ○ Hospital for the purpose of profit-making by 2 (Defendant 1), who is not a co-defendant as a medical person, and took part in the crime that allows non-medical persons to repeat the unlicensed medical practice, and the liability for such crime is not easy.

However, Co-defendant 2 (Defendant 1) appears to have led the instant crime, there is no evidence that the Defendant could have known that he obtained a profit through the instant crime, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant did not have any specific criminal history, etc., in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, etc., the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, which is set forth within the scope of mitigation of statutory punishment, shall be suspended within the scope of mitigation of

[Attachment]

Judges Yoon Jin- (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-young

1) Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) is not a medical person like Defendant 2 (Defendant 1).

2) Nonindicted 2 stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that “Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) was only about 20 times for the nearest three months.”

Note 3) One copy of the evidence record (hereinafter referred to as “certificate”) 528 pages: Provided, That the records have not yet reached the conclusion of the contract.

Note 4) Notarial 1, 410 pages

(5) Around 866, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) alleged that the aforementioned confirmation of the existence of the obligation was forged. However, even so, it can be presumed that Nonindicted 4, who was the nominal owner of the confirmation of the existence of obligation, was aware that Nonindicted 4, who was not Nonindicted 3 or Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 1), was aware of the other party to whom the establishment of ○○ Hospital was lent by Nonindicted 4 as Defendant 2 (Defendant 1).

(6) If the Defendants were to lend money from Defendant 2 (P: Defendant 1: 2,00,000 won on August 2, 201, August 9, 2011, KRW 10,000,000 on August 10, 2011, KRW 70,000 on August 30, 201, KRW 600,000 on September 8, 2011, and KRW 5,000,000 on October 10, 201: It is difficult to find out that the said money was loaned from Defendant 3 (P: 2: Defendant 1) to Defendant 3 (P: 2: Defendant 3:00,000 won on demand of Defendant 2 (P: 3:00,000 won on demand of Defendant 2) and Defendant 2 (P: 2:3:00,000 won on demand of Defendant 1). However, it is difficult for Defendant 2 (P: Defendant 1:3) to receive money from Defendant 1.

Note 7) 1,535,903 January 5, 2013

Note 8) 318,060 won on May 21, 2013

Note 9) No. 10-11 pages, 56 pages

Note 10) 1: 208 pages of the trial records (hereinafter “public trial records”)

Note 11) No. 2,148 pages No. 2,148 appears to have been drafted around November 15, 2012.

12) The Seoul Southern District Court 2012Kadan10311 decided July 5, 2012 constituted a judicial compromise.

Note 13) No. 2,389. The buyer column stated that “Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) of the Director of the Incheon ○○ Hospital Administrative Director” and signed the buyer column.

Note 14) No. 2,577 pages

Note 15) No. 341, 342 pages

Note 16) Notarial 1, 411

Note 17) No. 1,037 pages

Note 18) No. 1,012-1,013 pages 1

(19) No. 19) No. 2,233 of No. 2, Defendant 2 (Defendant 1) stated to the effect that the above operation contract was merely a draft of the investigation agency. However, according to the specific content, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) and Nonindicted 16 did not err in the judgment of the court below, which stated that the draft of the above contents correspond to the facts charged, was prepared, on the sole basis of the fact that Defendant 3 (Defendant 2) and Nonindicted 16 jointly operated the part-time center.

Note 20) Notarial 1, 496 pages, 1, 314 pages.

Note 21) No. 1, 442 pages

Note 22) Nonindicted 20, who served as an accounting officer at the general affairs department of ○○ Hospital, testified in the court of the court below that “Defendant 1 received incentives at the time of business and attraction of patients, and the incentives to be paid were specified by Defendant 2 (Defendant 1).” As seen earlier, the business transfer note (No. 1:2,148 pages) was the item of “the incentive imposed (Defendant 1).” As such, the business transfer note (No. 1:2,148 pages below) was the item of “the incentive imposed (Defendant 1).” However, while the current situation was paid KRW 1,50,000,00,000, it was stated that this part is “to be prepared so that the director may obtain approval from the director and make payment on the benefit day (no. 10 days).”