logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.05.22 2014노694
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the intention to operate A members from May 15, 2006 to September 15, 2012.

On January 8, 2010, the Defendant provided medical treatment to E, who is a non-medicalman who is not eligible for medical care benefits or medical benefits, by prescribing the food bath suppression (i.e., a food bath suppression), Schlage’s pension, DNA citizen’s license, and urinology (i.e., urinology), an urinology (i.e., urinium), an urinology (i., e., analinium), i.e., e., e., e., e., X-how, and e., and received medical expenses from E.

Nevertheless, around January 8, 2010, the Defendant provided medical treatment for the injury and disease subject to medical care benefits, such as fire extinguishing volume, to E, and prepared the medical record as if he prescribed the medicine subject to non-payment such as Purian Government, Schlage pension, DNA citizens, and Guideinton as if he/she prescribed the medicine subject to medical care benefits. On January 7, 2010, the Defendant provided medical treatment for the injury and disease subject to other medical care benefits, and prepared the medical record as if he/she prescribed the medicine subject to medical care benefits such as 'Aurine', 'Maglass’, and ' X-ray' as if he/she provided medical treatment for the injury and disease subject to medical care benefits, and then claimed the above medical expenses to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service on February 1, 2010 as medical care benefit costs.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service and requiring the Health Insurance Service to notify the Victim Health Insurance Service of the aggregate of KRW 12,360 of the above medical expenses, and received the above KRW 12,360 from the Victim Health Insurance Corporation. Also, under the above method, the Defendant provided treatment as if he/she provided treatment as an object of health care benefit or medical expenses (hereinafter “health care benefit expenses, etc.”) with the number of days of internal origin by separating the prescription for non-medical professionals by the aforementioned method, and provided treatment as an object of health care benefit or expenses of medical care (hereinafter “health benefit expenses, etc.”).

arrow