Of them, the part on the fraud against Defendant A and the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Fines.

Specifically, as follows:

A. Defendant B, C, and D with respect to the patients (Defendant B, C, and D) received only a brief medical treatment possible as the pains, and did not frequently undergo hospitalized treatment by going out of the country.

As can be seen, frequent out-of-door gambling means that the state at the time does not require long-term hospitalization.

In consideration of these circumstances, the intention of defraudation can be fully recognized.

B. As part of Defendant A’s part against Defendant A (hereinafter “instant member”) had insufficient human resources for treating patients, and there was no control over outing-of-the-counter gambling at all, Defendant A did not pay any particular attention to medical treatment, it is deemed that Defendant A intended to obtain a large amount of medical care benefits than the medical care benefits benefits that may have been actually received.

In addition, as long as the defendant voluntarily claimed expenses for medical care from the National Health Insurance Corporation, it is deemed that the patient was well aware of the fact that the patient was informed of the fact that he/she was informed of the fact that he/she received a large amount of insurance money by deceiving the insurance company, and the fact that the defendant prepared a medical record book differently from the fact

2. Determination on the part of the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court’s judgment ① There was an intentional act of defraudation under the Criminal Code against the patient beyond the moral hazard.

It is difficult to see that the result of the medical analysis alone is sufficient to determine the propriety of hospitalization, and ③ Defendant A was unable to request the patient, or hospitalized treatment for the patient’s convenience.