beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s grounds of appeal made a restriction on medical treatment against H. ① This cannot be the same as the removal from position stipulated in the school foundation I’s articles of incorporation, ② this did not affect the position, assignment, or salary as H professor, ③ Defendant did not directly give instructions to H, and thus did not exercise its power.
The restriction on medical treatment was a legitimate exercise of the authority to direct and supervise the defendant, who is the president of G Hospital, and the legitimacy can be recognized in that the approval of the president of F University and the vice president of medical affairs has been obtained.
In addition, the Defendant instructed the deletion of vert only inverte, among the specialized departments of H, in the information board for specialized medical professors, and there is no direction to delete the personal mission.
Nevertheless, the court below found the whole charge of obstruction of business guilty, and the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts.
B. The court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of defamation on the ground that the contents of a notice and a book are true or exaggerated expressions although the Defendants distributed a notice and a book containing false facts, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of defamation. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.
(2) In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case on unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (the suspended sentence of KRW 500,000,000) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) Determination of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A is based on the summary of this part of the facts charged, Defendant A is the president of the F University Medical Center G Hospital (hereinafter “G Hospital”).
The Defendant, who is a professor and doctor of the above hospital, has been able to know with the victim due to measures such as restrictions on the purchase of materials on spine brate spathn, developed and used by the victim H as an operation material for spine brate spathn.
On August 18, 2008, the defendant directed the above hospital's prime team.