1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts and the Plaintiffs’ additional determination as to the additional assertion in the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] On the fourth and second sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "this court" shall be added to "the first instance court".

On September 6, 2018, the first instance court sentenced Plaintiff B to two years of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence for Plaintiff D with prison labor for 10 months (Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2615), and against the said Plaintiffs, during the trial of the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2018No1677) (Seoul High Court 2018Do2615). After remanding the case, this court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the violation of the National Health Insurance Act of Plaintiff B and the violation of the National Health Insurance Act of Plaintiff D on September 6, 2018, and sentenced Plaintiff B to two years of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence for Plaintiff D (2018No1677), but the appeal was dismissed on December 13, 2018 (2018Do14606).

On the five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 40 "Article 40" shall be added to "Article 42".

On the six pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first instance and the second and seven pages 1 and the first and the first half of the seven pages 1 were “as seen earlier, the fact that the judgment of first instance became final and conclusive, or was convicted at the court of final appeal, but the sentence was imposed, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to other criminal facts, and thus, was reversed and remanded at once

【Supplementary Decision】

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) In rendering each of the dispositions of this case, it did not provide the opportunity to present opinions pursuant to Article 21 of the Administrative Procedures Act, and it did not implement the hearing procedures pursuant to Article 22 of the same Act. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful due to its procedural defect (hereinafter "section 1").

(b).