The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

1. Defendant B. The defendant

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine by Defendant D’s request by the co-Defendant C, who omitted, merely engaged in simple entry and withdrawal from the O members, purchase of food materials, and cleaning of hospital. In collusion with co-Defendant A, B, and C, Defendant D did not unlawfully acquire the amount equivalent to the medical care benefit from the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “victim”) by fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which held Defendant D liable for the joint principal offense against fraud.

B. Defendant G alleged in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine of Defendant G: (a) operated “T member” on April 22, 2009 to “FA 2,” and (b) operated the hospital with the name changed from September 21, 2009 to “E member” on the same place or from 40 meters away from the same place; and (c) re-enter the name changed to “N association T member” at the same place on October 1, 2010.

Since there was no change in the specialized department, medical equipment, signboard design, and medical team of the hospital at the time, and the defendant G operated it as the same medical institution in substance, the crime of fraud caused by the operation of the hospital in paragraphs (1) through (3) constitutes a single comprehensive crime of fraud as a whole.

In this regard, the judgment of 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution against the fraud by the operation of the hospital in paragraph (1) became final and conclusive (the judgment of 2014 highest 987 decided January 23, 2015, hereinafter “former final and conclusive judgment”); the effect of the previous final and conclusive judgment extends to the first instance judgment, such as Paragraph (2), and the criminal facts of the second instance judgment, such as Paragraph (3).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below 1 and 2 did not impose an acquittal on the facts charged in paragraph 3 and erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles that found the guilty.

(c)

The court below sentenced the Defendants to the 1 and 2nd judgment.