특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
The punishment for A shall be three years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment of Defendant A, B, C, and D is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant E and F1) In fact, the Defendants merely worked as an employee without being involved in the establishment of the AH hospital, but did not intervene in the claims for medical care benefits, etc.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
(c)
The prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing (as to Defendant A), the lower court's punishment is too unfasible and unfair.
2. At the lower court’s judgment as to the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor, Defendant A deposited KRW 4 billion for the National Health Insurance Corporation, and Defendant A deposited KRW 2,626,478,550 on the part of the victim, and deposited KRW 2,626,478,50 on the part of the victim. On March 20, 2018, Defendant A obtained approval for installment payment from the person who suffered damage on the part of the victim, and obtained approval for installment payment for KRW 1,172,716,91,210 on the remaining amount by 24 times until March 31, 2020.
The above installment payment approval is determined by the National Health Insurance Corporation by comprehensively examining the payment capacity of the National Health Insurance Corporation and the current status of hospital operation. If the installment payment is implemented in a timely manner, the victim can fully recover from the damage. This is the sentencing factor to be newly considered for the defendant.
In addition, most of the medical care benefits and medical care benefits paid by Defendant A seems to have been used as a hospital operating fund. Defendant A does not find out that the K Medical Foundation acquired personal benefits, such as medical personnel additional charges paid by the injured party. AH hospital is operated as the enemy and it seems that Defendant A actually earned personal benefits, and AH hospital was established by Defendant A, a non-medical person, but at the above hospital, Defendant D.