The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant visited the J convalescent Hospital under the name of H in Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Gyeyang-gu, for about nine months, and that the number of patients was about four times, and about seven patients was about seven times, and that the medical treatment was also returned to the hospital and briefly advanced. Thus, a doctor who established a medical institution under his/her own name with the above act of the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute a case where the medical treatment was performed directly by a medical institution established under another doctor’s name.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding facts or understanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The purport of Article 30(2)1 of the Medical Service Act, which limits the number of medical institutions in which a doctor can open to one place, is to prevent in advance a person who is not a doctor by permitting the establishment of a medical institution only to the extent of the place where a doctor can directly perform medical practice.

Therefore, even if a physician who establishes a medical institution in his own name directly opens another medical institution under the name of another doctor, and directly engages in the management of a newly established medical institution, such as employing its employees, paying the salary, and taking profits accruing from the business, it cannot be deemed that another doctor actually established a separate medical institution by borrowing another doctor’s license. However, even if a medical institution established in another doctor’s name, which directly provides medical treatment or hires a unqualified person and provided medical treatment under his/her own supervision, the above doctor who already established the medical institution under his/her own name, even if the other doctor, who is the name of the founder,