The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A. B, Defendant B, and C, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

A. Defendant C (Definite) as a doctor in both sides, tried to examine patients suffering from the nursing room, and only prescribed normal conditions, such as blood tests, urine tests, and urine tests, which are the basic prosecutor necessary for hospitalization, and there was no false provision of medical records, etc. as the prescription for false-patient patients, such as the taking-out treatment, the taking-out treatment of external shock, and the treatment of external shock, etc., was conducted voluntarily by the original director and employees

Defendant

C was unaware of the false and exaggerated claim for medical care benefits by inducing false patients and the National Health Insurance Corporation. Therefore, there was no conspiracy to commit a crime with Defendant A, B, and there is no fact that the National Health Insurance Corporation acquired the medical care costs by fraud.

B. The Defendants’ respective sentences of the lower court (the Defendants A: imprisonment of one and half years, Defendant B, and C: 10 months, 2 years of suspended execution, and 200 hours of community service order) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court. In other words, R at the time of the instant case requested the Defendant C to make a false prescription with the content of providing the Defendant C with water treatment or physical shock treatment, etc. The Defendant C refused to directly make a prescription, and ordered C to prepare a prescription with the identification from the original department. Since Defendant C also stated to the National Health Insurance Corporation that it was aware of the claim for false medical benefits, Defendant C also made a statement to the effect that it was aware of the claim, and there was no circumstance to suspect the credibility of each of the instant crimes, and Defendant C also recognized all of the instant crimes until the investigative agency and the court of the lower judgment.