Defendant 1 and one other

Red melting, Egym (prosecutions) and Kim Dong-dong (Public trial)

Law Firm Geok et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and by a fine of two million won.

When Defendant 2 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 2 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant 2 shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

1. "Defendant 1)";

Defendant 1 is a person who serves as the head of the administrative office of the "Seongsung Hospital" in the Sung-si ( Address 1 omitted).

Defendant 1, around February 11, 2014, the victim non-indicted 6 introduced by the head of the nursing department of the above hospital at the above hospital office of the victim non-indicted 7, who was introduced from the above hospital office, the head of the above hospital, “It is anticipated to open the "Yeo-gu Hospital" in the building located in the Donggung-gu ( Address 3 omitted), which is the building located in the Donggdong-gu ( Address 3 omitted), and the security deposit amounting to KRW 100,000,000 shall be exclusively operated for the hospital restaurant of the hospital, and there will be profits equivalent to KRW 7,00,00 per month, and in order to secure the return of the security deposit, Defendant 1 made a false statement to the effect that the establishment of a collateral security right shall be registered on the land (hereinafter referred to as the "original

However, Defendant 1 was able to be involved in the operation of the hospital only through the establishment of a medical corporation because he was not qualified as a doctor. However, Defendant 1 did not have applied for establishment, etc. to the public health authorities. Defendant 1 agreed to operate the above hospital in partnership with Nonindicted 11, and Defendant 1 did not have the right to operate the restaurant independently, and Defendant 1 did not have the right to operate the restaurant, and Defendant 1 did not have the right to operate the restaurant, and Defendant 3 did not have any specific property; ④ Nonindicted 6 avoided Nonindicted 6 from setting up the right to collateral security on the land of the State, and ⑤ even if the right to collateral security on the land of the above land was set up, the sum of the officially announced value in 200,000 won for the above land did not reach KRW 21,60,000,000 without a deposit of KRW 100,000 or KRW 100,000 from the victim Nonindicted 6, or did not have the right to operate the restaurant.

As above, Defendant 1 received KRW 50,000,000 on the same day from the victim non-indicted 6, and KRW 50,000,000 on March 10, 2014 from the victim non-indicted 6, respectively, by receiving KRW 50,00,00 from the victim non-indicted 6 in the corporate bank account (Account Number omitted) used by Defendant 1, respectively.

2. "Chairperson 2015 Highest 4327 Defendants";

A. Defendant 2

No medical person shall establish and operate at least two medical institutions under any pretext.

Nevertheless, from around August 5, 2013 to around December 4, 2013, Defendant 2 opened and operated a medical institution in duplicate by opening and operating “○○ Hospital (Name 1 omitted)” in the name of the Defendant 2, from around September 4, 2013 to around December 4, 2013, which is located in the name of Nonindicted 4, in the name of “○○ Hospital (title 2 omitted)” in the name of the Defendant 2 from around Ansan-si ( Address 2 omitted).

B. Defendant 1

1) Violation of the Medical Service Act

No person may establish a medical institution, other than a doctor, herb doctor, dentist, midwife, the State, a local government, a medical corporation, a nonprofit corporation under the Civil Act and Special Act, or quasi-governmental institution.

Nevertheless, from December 5, 2013 to June 17, 2014, Defendant 1 opened and operated a medical institution by having Defendant 2 take over the facilities and human resources of the instant hospital in the name of Nonindicted 4 on September 4, 2013, which was opened by Defendant 2 from around December 5, 2013 to around June 17, 2014, and continuously pay to Nonindicted 4 a monthly amount of KRW 5,00,000 in return for the name lending, and managing human resources of the above hospital established in the name of Nonindicted 4, and managing the employment, nurse, etc., and managing revenues of the doctor, nurse, etc., and Nonindicted 2, 8, 9, and an oriental medical doctor and Nonindicted 10 were not a doctor, etc. by having them perform medical practice

2) Fraud

In case where a person who is not eligible to establish a medical institution in violation of the Medical Service Act has engaged in medical practice by employing a doctor, etc., he shall not be paid medical care benefit costs, etc. under

Nevertheless, from December 5, 2013 to June 17, 2014, Defendant 1 opened and operated a hospital at which Nonindicted 4, a doctor, had Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 10 of an oriental medical doctor, who had the doctor provide medical treatment to patients, and filed a claim for medical care expenses, etc. with the National Health Insurance Corporation.

As such, Defendant 1 deceivings the Victim National Health Insurance Corporation, and thereby deceivings the Victim by receiving the total sum of KRW 169,526,760 from the National Health Insurance Corporation under the name of health care benefit expenses, etc. over 43 times, such as the statement in the list of offenses.

【Fact 1 in the market, 2015 Highest 642】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 6, 11, and 7

1. Entry of Defendant 1 in part of each protocol of examination of suspect against Defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Each investigation report (the verification of the officially announced land price related to the establishment of a collateral security, the verification of whether an application for the establishment of the main hospital is submitted, the filing of income statements at the location of a branch hospital, and the filing of a business contract at

1. Recording records;

1. A restaurant operation contract;

1. A detailed statement of transaction, a copy of a passbook, or a certificate of full payment in a restaurant in a hospital with a beneficiary;

1. Commercial lease contract;

1. Details of use;

【Fact 2 in the market, 2015 Highest 4327】

1. Each legal statement of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement (defendant 2)

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement (Defendant 1)

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 5

1. Partial statement of the witness Nonindicted 2 in the court

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 11

1. Investigation report (Investigation into telephone conversations with the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning regulatory reform officer);

1. Request for investigation cooperation (report on the opening of a hospital at issue and related documents);

1. Reporting on the establishment of a hospital at issue and reply;

1. Business registration certificate;

1. Current status of medical care institutions;

1. The entry into and departure from Korea by Nonindicted 4 individual

1. A written application for transaction in the name of Nonindicted 4 and a statement of account transaction, and an application for transaction in the name of Nonindicted 4 and a statement of account transaction

1. A statement of bank transactions, text message, copy of contract, and receipt of a report on closure of business;

1. Employment contract, hospital transfer or takeover contract (a date of investigation record No. 692);

1. Data related to actual payments, such as data on the payment of benefits of the National Health Insurance Corporation and health care benefit;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendant 1: Each criminal law Article 347(1)(Fraud) of the Criminal Act; Article 87(1)2 of the Medical Service Act; Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act (the establishment of a non-qualified medical institution); and each choice of imprisonment

○ Defendant 2: Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act; selection of fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendant 2: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendant 2: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant 1, 2015 highest 642

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, even if Defendant 1 received KRW 100,00,000 from the victim non-indicted 6 as a security deposit, it is recognized that Defendant 1, as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime, obtained the right to operate the restaurant of a hospital from the victim non-indicted 6 or obtained the right to operate the restaurant of a hospital in the absence of the intent or ability to return the security deposit in the event that it is not possible to operate the restaurant, thereby deceiving Non-indicted 6 of the victim non-indicted 6 as a security deposit for the restaurant operation of the restaurant, and that Defendant 1 had the intention of

① Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 11 did not proceed with the procedures for filing an application for establishment of a medical corporation that can open the Kansung branch until the business partnership is held between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 11. Defendant 1 asserted that Defendant 1 attempted to operate the Kansung branch in the form of the branch office of Nonindicted 14, but the procedures for the application for the establishment of the above branch were not well progress (the above incorporated association did not obtain the relevant approval or permission from the relevant agency to the Gansung branch, which was operated by Defendant 1). Nevertheless, Defendant 1 told the victim Nonindicted 6 to the effect that the hospital can be established within March 2014.

② Nonindicted 11 stated that Defendant 1 did not have the authority to independently entrust the operation of the restaurant. There is no material that there was a specific agreement on the entrustment of the operation of the restaurant between Nonindicted 11 and Defendant 1 (the Defendant 1 was not infinite in preparation of the business contract required by Nonindicted 11). The Nonindicted 11, who requested Defendant 1 to invest approximately KRW 300,000 from KRW 250,000 to KRW 30,000,000 as operating expenses, was required by Nonindicted 11 to invest approximately KRW 250,000 as operating expenses, before the investment was made (in the case of Defendant 1’s assertion, the amount invested by Defendant 1 is merely 50,000,000,000 won until the partnership with Defendant 11). It is difficult to deem that Defendant 1 entrusted the operation of the restaurant solely beyond the preparation for the establishment and operation of the restaurant, and it was difficult to expect that Defendant 11 had the investment deposit under the influence of the agreement.

On the other hand, Defendant 1 did not notify the victim non-indicted 6 of the investment or the operation of the restaurant to the non-indicted 11, and explained that Non-indicted 11 was merely a man-made business operator, and the part of the investment made by Non-indicted 11 was said to have been invested by himself, and the victim non-indicted 6 met Non-indicted 11, and then the victim's non-indicted 11 was not notified of the entrusted operation of the restaurant.

③ Defendant 1 used a large portion of the deposit received from Nonindicted 6 of the victim Nonindicted 6 as the purchase fund for the building of the building at the Sungsungsung Hospital, which is not related to the opening and operation of the non-indicted 6’s establishment and operation of the non-indicted 6, and Defendant 1 was in the state of the next half of 2014. Defendant 1 returned KRW 15,000,000 out of the deposit to the victim Nonindicted 6 on April 30, 2014, and returned the deposit in full for about 10 months.

④ The land at Won-si was owned by Nonindicted 15, who is not the ownership of Defendant 1, and the officially announced value was as indicated in paragraph (1) of the crime, and Defendant 1 expressed that he promised to establish the right to collateral security to the victim Nonindicted 6 without finding out the market value. Meanwhile, Defendant 1 did not properly proceed with the procedure of application for the establishment of the said branch office. However, unlike the agreement, Defendant 1 did not set the right to collateral security to the victim Nonindicted 6, unlike the agreement, even if the land at Won-si did not properly proceed with the procedure of application for the establishment of the said branch office.

2. Defendants 2015 Highest 4327

A. Defendant 2

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 2 is recognized to have established and operated a medical institution as described in paragraph (a) of the crime by substantially operating ○○ Hospital from September 4, 2013 to December 4, 2013.

① On September 5, 2013, while the Defendant 2 was operating the △△△△ Hospital in exchange with the △△△ Hospital operated by Nonindicted 2, Defendant 2 was working as the head of the planning office at the ○○ Hospital and dispatched Nonindicted 5, who was leaving the position to the △△△ Hospital, along with himself, to the ○○ Hospital. Nonindicted 5, from that time, received a report or instruction on funds from the employees of the ○○ Hospital until he was ordered to return from Defendant 2 on December 5, 2013, and reported this to Defendant 2. Defendant 2 received a report from Nonindicted 4 with the ○○○ Hospital’s account for the foregoing period, received management of the revenues of the ○○○○ Hospital’s account, and approved the disbursement of monthly salary or the cost of goods. Meanwhile, it appears that the employment was succeeded to more than the example of Nonindicted 5’s authority within the ○○ Hospital during the foregoing period, but the ○○ Hospital’s key part, as it was in the operation of the Fund.

② Around September 5, 2013, Nonindicted Party 2 concluded an employment contract with Defendant 2 and provided medical treatment at ○○ Hospital. Nonindicted Party 5 did not report on the execution of funds to Nonindicted Party 2, and it appears that other employees did not report to Nonindicted Party 2 or did not obtain approval.

③ Non-Indicted 5 brought about both the ○○ Hospital’s revenues to Defendant 2. The employment contract prepared by Non-Indicted 2 with Defendant 2 stated that “the profit shall be accumulated after the settlement of accounts every month.” However, Defendant 2 himself stated that the profit of the ○ Hospital was settled and used to take over the △△△△ Hospital under auction process with Non-Indicted 2 and 1 after the settlement of the profits of the ○○ Hospital. Accordingly, the operating profit of the ○○ Hospital seems to have been partially reverted to Defendant 2.

④ Around December 4, 2013, Defendant 2 drafted a written agreement with Nonindicted 2 to re-transfer ○ Hospital to Nonindicted 2. Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2 agreed to pay the drug price used in the ○ Hospital by December 5, 2013 due to the special agreement, but, upon entering into an initial exchange agreement, Defendant 2 agreed to pay the drug rent for the ○○ Hospital that Nonindicted 2 would pay to the ○○ Hospital.

⑤ Defendant 2 asserted that Nonindicted 2 opened and operated the ○○ Hospital, and that himself only managed the funds of the ○ Hospital. However, even according to Defendant 2’s statement (in the event that Nonindicted 1, who arranged for the exchange and operation of the hospital, discontinued the ○ Hospital and forced Defendant 2 to manage the funds of the ○ Hospital by claiming employees’ retirement pay, medicine charges, etc. at a time, on a temporary basis, by starting the ○ Hospital, Defendant 2 continued to manage the funds of the ○ Hospital to avoid receiving employee’s retirement pay, medicine charges, etc. at a time due to the closure of the ○ Hospital, and maintained the operation of the ○○ Hospital.

B. Defendant 1

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 1 established a medical institution even if he was not a doctor, etc. from December 5, 2013 to June 17, 2014, as stated in each of the criminal facts No. 2-B, and it is recognized that Defendant 1 was by deceiving the victims of the National Health Insurance Corporation to receive medical care benefit expenses, etc.

① Defendant 1’s employees of Nonindicted 14 were involved in the temporary operation of the ○○ Hospital by participating in the transfer thereof, and the actual operation of the ○○ Hospital was not established and operated. However, it appears that Nonindicted 14 was approved by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning with respect to the establishment of the ○○ Hospital’s branch office at the above hospital on June 5, 2014, and Defendant 1 did not proceed with the procedure of the above permission, etc. around June 17, 2014 when the public health clinic’s permission was obtained, and around December 5, 2013 when Defendant 1 took over the above hospital on December 5, 2013. Moreover, there is no material to deem that Defendant 1 reported the management, supervision, or the above operation status, etc. of the said association in relation to the operation of the above hospital during the period specified in paragraph 2

② Defendant 2 did not manage the funds of the ○○ Hospital from around December 5, 2013. Defendant 2 stated that the custody of Nonindicted 4’s passbook from around February 5, 2014 was due to the payment of medical care benefit expenses, etc. that was first demanded at the end of the following month. Defendant 2 returned to the ○○ Hospital by Nonindicted 5, who was dispatched to the ○○ Hospital, around December 5, 2013. Nonindicted 12/12 of the above hospital’s officers and employees, brought about Nonindicted 5 to Defendant 1. Meanwhile, Defendant 1 had already opened Nonindicted 4’s account in the name of Nonindicted 2 before receiving the said passbook from Defendant 2 on January 3, 2014.

③ At around December 2013, Defendant 1 discussed Nonindicted 11 and the Dong business of the Kando Hospital, but he was operating ○○ Hospital. On January 2014, Defendant 1 replaced the existing employees of the above hospital and employed new employees, including Nonindicted 7, etc. of the Nursing Division, and around January 2014, Defendant 1 changed the said hospital trading company.

1. The scope of recommendations given to Defendant 1 on the sentencing criteria;

[Extent of Recommendation] General Fraud> Type 2 (at least KRW 100 million, less than KRW 500 million), the Basic Area (1-4 years)

[Special Mitigation (Aggravated Mitigation)] Where the risk of occurrence of damage is not substantially realized, / Where a crime is committed against an unspecified or many unspecified victims or repeatedly for a considerable period of time.

* Final sentence scope according to the standards for processing multiple crimes: one year to one.

2. Determination of sentence against the Defendants

A. Defendant 1

Defendant 1’s crime of violation of the Medical Service Act is a large amount; Defendant 1’s crime of violation of the Medical Service Act is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 1, taking into account the following: (a) there is a high need to punish Defendant 1, taking into account the fact that Defendant 1’s fraud is a large amount of fraud; (b) Defendant 1’s crime of violation of the Medical Service Act, which allows the establishment of medical institutions only by a doctor or corporation meeting strict qualification requirements to establish a sound medical order

However, Defendant 1 did not seem to have committed the crime against the victim non-indicted 6 with a conclusive intention, and the full damage recovery was made to the victim non-indicted 6, and the medical practice performed at the hospital operated by Defendant 1 appears to have been in charge by the medical personnel. In the period of the crime No. 2-b, Defendant 1 appears to have been actually acquired by running the hospital in an enemy state during the period of the crime No. 2-b, and Defendant 1 appears to have much profits from the crime during the above period, taking into account all the sentencing conditions, such as Defendant 1’s age, character

B. Defendant 2: Defendant 2 shall select a fine by taking into account the fact that the medical institution’s duplicate establishment and operation period is relatively short, the circumstances leading to the operation of ○○ Hospital’s fund management, and the fact that there was no previous offense of fine exceeding the amount of fine, and determine the punishment as ordered by the order.

[Attachment]

Judges Maximum Jin-jin

Note 1) The facts constituting this part of the crime are organized and recognized as follows to the extent that there is no substantial impediment to Defendant 1’s exercise of right of defense.