1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant among the judgment of the Minister of Health and Welfare shall be revoked, and the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant's incidental imposition of a second penalty surcharge, which was lodged by the Minister of Health and Welfare, is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part pertaining to "5. conclusion"), and the main sentence of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

(Other, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion are justifiable). 2. The part of the first instance court that was concluded on February, 17, 13, 18, and 10, as follows.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts charged with the second imposition of penalty surcharge and the evidence revealed earlier, the second imposition of penalty surcharge cannot be deemed unlawful as it abused discretion. A) According to the results of the instant on-site investigation, in the case of costs of medical benefits, the gross amount of the penalty surcharge is KRW 22,425,920, the monthly average amount is KRW 80,925, and the unfair rate is KRW 0.93%, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Medical Care Assistance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27275, Jun. 28, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Medical Care Assistance Act”).

() From December 13, 2013 to June 29, 2016, the upper limit of the period of suspension of business under Article 16-2 [Attachment Table 2] [Attachment Table 2] 1.b.1], and the upper limit of the amount of penalty under Article 16-3 [Attachment Table 3] 1. is 67,27,760 won (=22,425,920 x 3 times).

Therefore, the second penalty is imposed with the amount of penalty equivalent to the upper limit under the above standard under the Enforcement Decree of the former Medical Care Assistance Act, which conforms to the standard.

The above standard of the Enforcement Decree of the former Medical Care Assistance Act shall be the average monthly claim for expenses incurred in providing benefits claimed by an institution providing medical benefits by fraud or other improper means, and the investigation period.