If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

1. On August 4, 2009, the Defendant prepared a medical record as if he had received medical treatment in the absence of the fact that he had actually received medical treatment by being admitted to the above member, and claimed medical care benefit expenses to the Korea National Health Insurance Corporation for the victims.

As such, on August 21, 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10,346 as medical care benefit expenses from the head of an enterprise bank under the name of the Defendant on August 21, 2009 and received KRW 11,059,877 as medical care benefit expenses in total, 11,537 times as shown in the attached list.

2. On July 3, 2009, the Defendant in violation of the Medical Service Act prepared a prescription for E even though he did not have conducted a direct medical examination of F at the F’s request, and issued the F a prescription for E.

Until April 15, 2010, the Defendant issued a prescription to F via the above method 1,573 times in the absence of a direct diagnosis of 101 patients, such as the list of crimes in question.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to prescriptions, medical records and medical expenses statements;

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud point), Articles 89 and 17(1) of the Medical Service Act (in the case of issuing a prescription without direct medical examination), and selection of fines for the crime;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing of the instant crime on Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order is bad, or the Defendant recognizes and reflects the criminal facts, and the amount of fraud is not significant. The amount of damage was recovered to the victim, and the Defendant was already subject to administrative dispositions such as suspension of qualification for five months in relation to the instant crime, and the Defendant was suspended from execution.