A. In relation to the facts of the crime No. 1 to No. 3 in the original adjudication, the Defendant provided the recipient E with the visit medical service on Saturdays, and there was no fact that this part of the cost of benefits was falsely claimed. 2) As to the facts of the crime other than the facts of the recipient M among the facts of the crime listed in No. 1 to No. 4 and No. 9 of the crime list 1 to No. 10 of the crime list at the time of the original adjudication, the Defendant provided the recipient N with visiting medical service two hours at intervals of 2 hours in fact, there was no fact that the Defendant provided the recipient N with visiting medical service at intervals of 2 hours.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment-finding agency stated the content of a witness and a telephone in the form of a door-to-face format, and the investigation report without signing or sealing a witness is hearsay evidence. The hearsay evidence cannot be admitted as evidence other than those stipulated in Articles 311 through 316 in accordance with Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The above investigation report is not subject to Articles 311 through 316, but is not subject to Articles 311 through 316, and it cannot be admitted

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do2742 delivered on February 26, 199, etc.). According to the records, the defendant and his/her defense counsel consented at the court below to the part of the He's statement in the visit and the Excursion Ship Sheet (H), the part of the I's statement in the visit and the Excursion Ship Sheet (I), the part of the I's statement in the visit and the Excursion Ship Sheet (F), the recording recording (P), and the part of the P's statement in the P telephone listening report as evidence. Each of the above evidence is without the signature and seal of H, I, F, and P, who are the statements.

Therefore, even though each of the above evidence is inadmissible, the court below adopted and examined the above evidence as evidence, and, among them, took F’s statement in the visit and the answer letter (F) as evidence of guilt, so the above measures of the court below are the Criminal Procedure Act.