A. In order to recognize the act of claiming expenses for long-term care benefits without applying a reduction rate based on misunderstanding of facts, misapprehension of legal doctrine, and excess in the number of vacancies, etc., as deceiving the victim of the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “victims Corporation”), it should be the case where the medical care center’s admission to the medical care center was made by manipulating a false list as if the number of persons admitted to the medical care center did not meet the ratio of human resources assignment, or where the medical care center’s monthly working hours per person does not exceed 160 hours, and instead, he/she would have received improper expenses for long-term care benefits by manipulating the working hours.

However, in the case of E medical care center operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant medical care center”), 160 hours per month is extended to 2.5 inmates, where one medical care guardian was placed and actually administered for the medical care protection, and the total working hours of the medical care protection physician are divided into the number of persons.

Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving the Victim, and the Defendant merely thought that the Victim would claim expenses for benefits according to flexible operation, and did not have an intention to avoid the application of the reduction rate based on the vacancy ratio and the excess of the prescribed number of personnel when claiming expenses for benefits to the Victim. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be established a crime of fraud, since the Defendant did not have an intention to

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected all of the above arguments by clearly explaining the Defendant’s assertion and judgment in the written judgment, and comparing the judgment of the lower court with the evidential materials, the judgment is justified.