1. Of the judgment below, the crime of violation of each Medical Service Act, fraud, and the Control of Illegal Check Act against the defendant is committed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous or misunderstanding of the legal principles [related to the violation of the Medical Service Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)]; however, the Defendant first tried to establish the so-called “office-general hospital” but hearing the words of F that such hospital is illegal, and leased the building to F and B, which is a doctor of H convalescent hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”), and caused F, etc. to operate the instant hospital, and the Defendant merely assisted F, etc. to operate the hospital in the position of the lessor, and did not establish the hospital in collusion with F, etc.

In addition, as shown in the facts charged in the instant case submitted by the prosecutor, F's statement at the investigation agency and the court of original instance as they are inconsistent and contradictory, and there is no credibility, and N is now in the same business relationship with the defendant, and the defendant is in conflict with the interests of the defendant, and the above N's statement is merely a unilateral argument made for the purpose of punishing the defendant, and it is difficult to believe that the statement of the person who worked at the instant hospital, such as P andO, is claiming that the above person or his family has a claim for loans, retirement allowances, etc. against the defendant.

In addition, it is insufficient to prove that the defendant employed a medical person and established a hospital in light of the purpose and circumstance of the preparation of the remaining payment notes, agreement notes, etc. submitted by the prosecutor.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the Defendant established the instant hospital.

Recognizing that each of the facts charged in this case was found guilty of violation of the Medical Service Act and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected

Punishments rendered by the lower court in light of various sentencing conditions in the instant case.