All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A (A) and (1) of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the prosecutor charged this part of the date and time of the crime by stating that “the date and time of the crime was “the date and time of May 2013” and “the name of May 2013” were “the date and time of the crime.” As such, this part of the charges was specified.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(B) The Defendant did not directly engage in any non-licensed medical practice, such as dynasty or blood transfusion.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged solely with the statements by B and G without credibility.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Although the Defendant committed the crime of bodily injury is less than twice, the Defendant did not commit the bodily injury by drinking the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of bad faith diagnosis, injury photograph, etc.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was raped by A.

However, on January 31, 2017, at the time of the investigation of the witness, the prosecutor entered the statement that the defendant did not have the defendant, and forced him to sign or seal the statement.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking the second statement protocol as evidence against the Defendant in preparation of the prosecutor’s protocol, which is inadmissible as it is not admitted as evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or erroneous determination of admissibility of the protocol of statement.

B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The G misunderstanding of facts led to a confession from the prosecutor’s investigation, only at the time.