All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on each of the following grounds: (a) the violation of the Medical Service Act (Fraud) on the duplicate establishment and operation of the EDCF among the facts charged in the instant case; (b) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); (c) the duplicate establishment and operation of the Evalescent; (d) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); (d) the F) the Council members; (d) the Council members; and (g) the Council members; (d) the Council members; and (e) Hent establishment and operation of the I convalescent; and (d) the violation of the Medical Service Act on the duplicate establishment and operation of the Evalescent; (e) the enforcement date of the Medical Service Act amended by Act No. 11252, Feb. 1, 2012; (e) the violation of the AD Medical Service Act on the duplicate establishment and operation of the Evalescent; and (e) the remaining part of the judgment is found guilty.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the Prosecutor violated each of the Medical Service Act regarding the establishment of duplicates of the Evalescent hospital, D, F, and F, among the acquitted portion, and the lower court determined that the Defendant was innocent on August 2, 2012, which was the enforcement date of the amended Medical Service Act concerning each of the above medical institutions, and the Prosecutor did not appeal against this. As such, as seen later, this part was transferred to the lower court, but, as seen earlier, the Defendant went out from the object of attack and defense between the parties and went out of the object of trial.

On the grounds of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to each fraud regarding the duplicate establishment and operation of the E-Cvalescent hospital, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), DD, F, G, G, E, H, H, H, and I, on the part of conviction on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

If so, the prosecutor is not guilty of the above-mentioned reasons in accordance with the principle of no appeal.