except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who actually operates a long-term care institution under the name of “C, D, and E” located in Bupyeong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and manages and supervises employees, such as care workers under his/her control, social workers, etc.

The head of a long-term care institution shall, even if an elderly person aged 65 years or older or a person under 65 years of age is deemed unable to live alone for at least six months, and shall provide him/her with assistance in physical activities and household activities, care services, etc., or other long-term care benefits paid in lieu of such assistance (hereinafter referred to as "beneficiary") to a person who is subject to long-term care at the long-term care institution or a welfare facility for older persons (hereinafter referred to as "facility benefits"), provide him/her with education, training, etc. to support physical activities and to maintain and improve his/her mental and physical functions (hereinafter referred to as "facility benefits"), visit his/her home, provide him/her with assistance in physical activities and household activities, and bathing (hereinafter referred to as "re-care benefits"), and require a caregiver to enter the details thereof in the record of long-term care benefits, based on the above data, and then request the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") to access the cost of long-term care benefit portal of the following month to the institution:

The Defendant, as the victim, did not specifically examine the details entered in the cost claim system for long-term care benefits, and paid the amount automatically calculated by automatically calculating the system as long as the cost for long-term care benefits was paid to the victim, the lower ratio of the Corporation’s charge corresponding to the percentage of vacancy is applied when the Defendant violated the criteria for placement of human resources due to a vacancy in the agency employees.