Attorney T, R, U.V

1. According to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the National Health Insurance Act, Article 41(2) of the Regulations on the Standards for Medical Care Benefits in National Health Insurance, and Article 8(2) of the Regulations on the Standards for Medical Care Benefits in National Health Insurance, 'Health Insurance Act', which is a public announcement of the Ministry of Health and Welfare under Article 8(2) of the Regulations on the Standards for Medical Care Benefits in the National Health Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the "public announcement in this case"), dietitians and cookss shall be calculated according to the number of full-time dietitians and cooks belonging to the relevant medical care institution, and selective unit cost calculation and direct production shall be calculated when at least one full-time dietitians belonging to the relevant medical care institution are employed. In this case, not whether the relevant medical care institution belongs to the relevant medical care institution, but rather, whether the medical care institution actually directs and supervises the employment process of dietitians, etc., preparation of nutrition groups, orders for food and food materials, and supervision and supervision of the relevant medical care institution by taking into account such circumstances as 14.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant, the head of the above hospital, was paid additional charges, etc. directly, as if he/she directly operated the cafeteria, even though G had practically directed and supervised the dietitians, etc. of the cafeterias within the hospital.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for payment of dietitians, cooks, selective group surcharges, and additional charges as set forth in the instant notice, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The lower court determined that, on the premise that the criminal defendant was aware of the intention of defraudation, the criminal defendant deceivings the victim and received additional charges, etc. directly as he/she directly operated the cafeteria.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of defraudation in fraud, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Lee Dong-won