The judgment below

Among them, the part concerning the violation of the Medical Service Act due to false preparation of medical records against Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B did not intentionally prepare a false medical record, and even if part of the facts charged was not specified, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant B guilty of violating the Medical Service Act due to the false preparation of a medical record.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor against the Defendants, the court below erred in finding the Defendants not guilty of the charges on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by misunderstanding the facts, although the court below found the Defendants guilty of the charges on the fraud, while opening and operating the R oriental medical hospital and E oriental medical hospital under the name of Defendant B, which is an oriental medical doctor.

B) Although Defendant B prepared a false medical record as if some of the patients were hospitalized in E/L within the hospitalization period, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and thereby acquitted Defendant B of a part of the charges of violating the Medical Service Act due to the false preparation of the medical record with respect to Defendant B. 2) The sentencing of the lower court on Defendant B is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. As to the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the false preparation of medical records against Defendant B

A. A public prosecutor who made an ex officio determination of changes in the indictment on the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the false preparation of medical records as to Defendant B filed an application for permission of changes in the indictment as stated in “criminal facts,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed.