2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendants recognized the crime in the trial and reflect it, and the Defendants appear to have no profit gained in the course of operating E, and Defendant A did not have any other penal force than sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million in violation of the Medical Service Act, and Defendant B is recognized as the primary offender.

However, in full view of the various circumstances revealed in the records and pleadings of this case, including the Defendants’ use of the benefits for personal purposes while managing them as if they actually worked for a person who does not work in E, and the amount of the benefits was considerable, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is not heavy.

3. Therefore, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.