The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A, in six months of imprisonment, shall be punished by the defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (one year of the suspended sentence in June, and one year of the suspended sentence in April, and two million won of fine in case of Defendant D) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor against Defendant A, B, and C is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor, prior to the judgment on the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the records show that on December 15, 201, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years, probation and community service order, and confiscation on December 23, 201, by violating the Game Industry Promotion Act at the Seoul Eastern District Court on December 15, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 23, 2011. As such, each of the crimes against Defendant A, which the judgment of the court below rendered against Defendant A, are concurrent crimes with the above crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking into account equity and taking into account whether to reduce or exempt the sentence, the part of the judgment of the court below against

B. Although each of the instant crimes committed with Defendant B and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing was committed in collusion with Defendant B and C without properly performing medical treatment in line with the patient’s health condition, it was not necessary to be hospitalized, or even if the patient was allowed to be hospitalized, and the patient was not actually hospitalized, the crime was committed with the victim’s deceptioning insurance money of an amount equivalent to 36 million won through 85 times. However, although Defendant B was the first offender, and Defendant B was the first offender, and the crime was committed during the trial, and his mistake was divided; Defendant B was relatively old, and most damage to the victims was recovered; Defendant B’s Labor Welfare & Welfare Corporation to which Defendant B belongs.