Defendant

Part 1 of the judgment of the court below regarding CDs, A, and E, with the exception of compensation order in the judgment of the court below, and the second judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The violation of the Medical Service Act among the judgment of the court below by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (defendant A and CE 1) Defendant A (A): Defendant A acquired a hospital building and facilities from Defendant CD; Defendant A invested his own expenses in around July 2015 and operated the hospital independently from the beginning; and thereafter, Defendant A transferred the hospital’s operating right to the hospital to CE. In collusion with Defendant CD, a non-medical person, and operated the hospital in the form of business or employment.

(B) Fraud in the judgment of the first instance court: Defendant A did not operate a hospital in violation of the Medical Service Act; and Defendant A did not request the payment of medical care benefits or receive the payment of medical care benefits to his own account; thus, the crime of fraud is not established for the benefit

(C) Of the judgment of the first instance court, the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act: The situation five vehicles are not subject to the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, but are not manufactured by Defendant A for the purpose of sale.

Defendant

A is not related to the manufacture of multilateral herb drugs, and the public diagnosis was purchased in the Gyeongdong market and was only packaged for the alteration and was not directly manufactured.

(D) Violation of the Labor Standards Act in the judgment of the first instance court: Defendant A was led to the operation of the hospital or operated jointly, and CV and CW were not employed by Defendant A, and thus, the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to unpaid wages is not established.

(E) Of the judgment of the second instance, with respect to the fraud of the construction cost: Defendant A failed to complete the construction work due to the occurrence of dispute with the victims who are construction business operators; Defendant A failed to perform the construction work cost due to the aggravation of overall circumstances or unreasonable demand of the contractor with respect to the fraud of the lease deposit; and the fraudulent part of the investment money is an investment in which the investor was well aware of the financial situation of Defendant A; and the fraudulent part of the medical equipment cost becomes a complete ownership of the medical equipment.