beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. With regard to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of each of the medical devices in this case, while the J was in charge of the management of funds among the work of E C C, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the part of the interview conducted by J's doctor H is responsible for the part of the K's homepage, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as to the materials distributed by the Defendant, and posting the answer that the Defendant is responsible for the treatment of the EC website, etc., and thereby, the treatment and the patient response team, etc. was in charge of the Defendant's operation C, and eventually participated in the operation of EP clinic hospital such as public relations, etc.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, in light of various circumstances acknowledged by the court below, there is not sufficient evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor that the defendant advertised in an exaggerated advertisement about medical devices as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant for this reason is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below
B. The instant crime against the assertion of unfair sentencing is not that of the Defendant’s medical practice even though it is not a medical personnel, and the quality of the offense, such as filing an appeal against the side effects of the patient.