Defendant

The punishment against A shall be 1.5 million won, and the punishment against Defendant B shall be 1.0 million won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who drives an ambulances in the "Defendant B" corporation in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yan-gu.

Defendant

B is a corporation established for the purpose of transferring and treating emergency patients.

1. No person who accused A may perform the duties of an emergency medical technician by misrepresenting an emergency medical technician without being qualified as an emergency medical technician;

Nevertheless, on September 15, 2015, the Defendant, despite the absence of an emergency medical technician’s license, was on board an emergency vehicle that moves patients D from the emergency department of the National University Hospital in Yancheon-gu to the Seoul Masung Hospital and provided consultation and transportation services to patients as if the emergency medical technician was an emergency medical technician. Thus, the Defendant misrepresented the emergency medical technician with the emergency medical technician’s duties.

2. Defendant B, at the above date, committed a violation under the preceding paragraph in relation to Defendant A’s business at the above time and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement, Defendant B’s partial legal statement

1. A copy of each E statement, and a copy of the F’s application for civil petitioners;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (a G statement and a certified copy of the register of the representative of a corporation);

1. Relevant Article 60 (1) 2 of the Emergency Medical Service Act (in the case of Defendant B, Article 61 of the same Act) and the selection of a fine

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (it is an administrative penalty imposed on a person who has violated administrative duties, and even if a penalty surcharge and punishment are imposed concurrently on the same matter as the penal punishment and its purpose, form, legal nature, etc. under the criminal law are entirely different, they cannot be deemed to violate the provisions on double punishment guaranteed by the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do3026, Mar. 22, 1996).