Operating a Dental Network in Violation of the "One Doctor, One Clinic" Rule... U.D. Dental Clinic Head Sentenced to Prison on Appeal

Prison Sentence Suspended in First Trial, Three Years Imprisonment in Second Trial
Fled Abroad and Missed All Court Hearings

The head of U.D. Dental Clinic, who was indicted for violating the "one doctor, one clinic" rule under the Medical Service Act by owning and operating more than 20 dental clinics, has been sentenced to prison in the appellate trial.

According to Yonhap News on March 19, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Appellate Division 9-1 (Presiding Judges Choi Bowon, Hwang Boseunghyuk, and Jeong Hyewon) sentenced Director Kim to three years in prison for violating the Medical Service Act. Previously, in October 2024, Kim had received a sentence of three years in prison with a five-year probation from the court of first instance.

Kim was accused of operating a total of 22 dental clinics by employing 18 nominal directors from August 2012 to November 2015. In the past, U.D. Dental Clinic supported each branch with capital and equipment through sole proprietorships and collected franchise fees such as brand and consulting fees. U.D. Dental Clinic gained significant popularity among patients for its affordable treatment fees, at one point operating over 100 clinics nationwide.

The situation changed dramatically when the amended Medical Service Act was introduced in 2012. Article 33, Paragraph 8 of the Act stipulates that "medical professionals are not allowed to establish or operate more than one medical institution under any circumstances." Because of this regulation, commonly known as the "one doctor, one clinic rule," the business model of U.D. Dental Clinic instantly became illegal.

The prosecution indicted the CEO and other accomplices of U.D. Dental Clinic in November 2015, but had difficulty locating Kim, resulting in his indictment being suspended for eight years. In December 2023, Kim was finally indicted without detention.

Kim fled to the United States and has not appeared at any of the court hearings to date, including the one on this day. After postponing the hearing once, the appellate court immediately concluded the arguments at the first session held. According to Article 23 of the "Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Lawsuits," if the defendant cannot be located for more than six months after a report of undeliverable service is filed, the trial and sentencing may proceed in the defendant's absence.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.