The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, even before the instant case, was operating a F Council member (hereinafter “F Council member”), and thus, the Defendant conspiredd with non-medical persons to establish a new medical institution.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see, that the Defendant, a medical person, actually managed and supervised the business trip examination work, and that the Defendant entered into a contract with B, C, and D (hereinafter “joint Defendant of the lower court”) with incentives in order to assume responsibility, etc., the Defendant newly established a medical institution in collusion with the joint Defendants of the lower court.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court’s determination 1) Whether the act of establishing a medical institution by an agreement between a non-medical person and a medical person in the same occupation constitutes an act of establishing a medical institution by a non-medical person prohibited under the Medical Service Act ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the content and mode of business relationship, the degree of actual participation in the establishment of a medical institution, the types of operation of a medical institution, etc., and whether anyone has been in charge of establishing and operating a medical institution from the perspective of leading.

Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the medical service act violates the Medical Service Act in cases where it is deemed that a non-medical person can actually establish and operate a medical institution only formally only.

In addition, in light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined, if one medical person conspired to establish a non-medical professional and processed it, it constitutes a joint principal offender for a violation of Article 87(1)2 and Article 33(2) of the Medical Service Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do378, Apr. 7, 2017).