All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, and C, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A, B, and C of the facts charged against Defendant A (excluding the part not guilty of Defendant B’s grounds) on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act due to the establishment of a pharmacy by a person other than a pharmacist, the establishment of a crime of fraud, and a joint principal offense

In addition, the argument that the crime of this case does not cause considerable damage to the National Health Insurance Corporation, or that the above defendants should be individually considered in the process of participating in the crime of this case constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the above Defendants, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unreasonable

2. As to the Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant D of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, due to the establishment of a pharmacy by a person who is not a pharmacist,