For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that convicted Defendant C of the violation of the Medical Service Act, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and Defendant F on January 1, 2016, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in collusion with B.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant F, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.