The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground of appeal, according to Article 41(2) of the National Health Insurance Act and Article 8(2) of the Regulations on the Standards for Medical Care Benefits for National Health Insurance, “the table of non-health insurance action benefits and the relative value points of benefits” (hereinafter “instant notice”), a dietitian shall be calculated according to the number of full-time dietitians and cooks belonging to the relevant health care institution, and the addition and direct operation of selective meals shall be calculated in cases where a dietitian belonging to the relevant health care institution is at least one full-time dietitians belonging to the relevant health care institution.

At this time, whether a dietitian or cook (hereinafter “nutrition, etc.”) belongs to the relevant medical care institution shall be determined not by the medical care institution, but by whether the medical care institution has entered into a formal work contract with a dietitian, etc., but by whether the medical care institution actually employs a dietitian, etc. and directs and supervises it.

In order to determine this, the following should be comprehensively taken into account: (a) the process of employing dietitians, etc.; (b) the preparation of meals; (c) the examination of orders for food materials; (d) whether the medical care institution actually directed and supervised and managed the relevant dietitians, etc.; and (e) whether the medical care institution actually bears personnel expenses, such as dietitians, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9497, Jan. 14, 2016). In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant, the president of the instant hospital, was operating the instant restaurant directly; and (b) the dietitian, etc. claimed and paid additional charges to the National Health Insurance Corporation as if he/she were a full-time employee of the instant hospital, constitutes deception of fraud.

Examining the records in accordance with the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is made.