2. Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and imprisonment for one year and two months, and suspension of qualifications for Defendant A.

A. Defendant A and C’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (community distribution) Nos. 2 Nos. 1 and 6 Nos. 1 and Defendant E’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (community distribution) as to the crime date and time, and the victim’s violation of the attached Table No. 6 Nos. 1 and 6 of the List of Crimes (community distribution) are invalid, and the indictment procedure is invalid because the victim is not specified. Even if this part of the facts charged was specified, the Defendants did not jointly engage in the two floors of the date and time indicated in this part of the facts charged, and the two floors of the K Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

B. Defendant A and C’s assertion of misconception of facts as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (community distribution) Nos. 2 Nos. 2 and 2 of the annexed Crimes List No. 2, there was no fact that the Defendants jointly with B, etc. and forced the instant hospital to take the date and time indicated in this part of the facts charged, and the victim BT refusing to be hospitalized at the place, leading the two arms of the victim BT

C. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts regarding Defendant A’s fraud did not know that the nursing log, program log, and attendance book were false, which serve as the basis for the application for the payment of medical care benefits, and applied for the payment of medical care benefits to the Victim Health Insurance Corporation. Therefore, Defendant did not have the intent to obtain fraud.

Defendant

B’s aiding and abetting the violation of the Mental Health Act, misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding confinement. The Defendant assisted A, a substantial chief director of the instant hospital, and was in charge of administrative affairs by assisting A, but did not actually control the employees such as S, so the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to act to protect the patients under the Mental Health Act and cooking, and the Defendant was at the harsh conduct of S.