When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

1. The Defendant in violation of the Medical Service Act is a doctor who operates a mutual hospital called “D” in Daejeon Pungdong-gu C.

No person other than a doctor who directly examines shall prepare a prescription and deliver it to the patient.

However, the defendant around December 14, 2009, even though there was no direct diagnosis of F, which is the husband of a female, but it is the pre-donation treatment agent, as if he directly conducted a medical examination, '10 g 10 g g 200 meters of the charged facts'. However, the defendant is revised according to the evidence.

The prescriptions were prepared and issued.

2. Around January 13, 2010, the Defendant: (a) even though there was no fact of having treated F on December 14, 2009, the Defendant directly provided medical treatment to the Health Insurance Assessment Board by requesting a review of medical expenses to the Health Insurance Assessment Board; and (b) had the Health Insurance Assessment Board notify the National Health Insurance Corporation of the results of the review to the Victim.

On February 2, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 10,371 from a single bank account (Account Number: G) of the Defendant on February 2, 2010.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each legal sound recording file for a witness F and E;

1. Copies of sales slips, details of health insurance benefits, and medical records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the specification of the amount of fraudulent damage), investigation reports (the method of claiming medical expenses, etc.);

1. Relevant Article on criminal facts, Articles 89, 17 (1) of the Medical Service Act (the issuance of prescriptions, the selection of fines) and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of fraud and the selection of fines) concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant had prepared and issued a prescription after directly diagnosing F on or around December 14, 2009.