All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the grounds for appeal shall be considered to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal, if a defense counsel submits such grounds after the lapse of deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal);

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (defendants) 1) assertion as to the fraud caused by the direct fraud, additional charges, and fraud from among the food care benefit (defendants) (1) H hospital (hereinafter “H hospital,” and “instant hospital”).

(3) As Defendant E received food materials from the J operated by Defendant E, and did not entrust meal services, and operated the cafeteria directly at the above hospital as a cafeteria, Defendant E operated the cafeteria, the National Health Insurance Corporation (hereinafter “victim”) shall claim additional charges.

2) The Defendants knew that only employed a dietitian and a cook directly at the instant hospital meet the requirements of “direct management” and actually employed a dietitian, etc. as an employee of the said hospital, and therefore there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud on the additional charge of direct charge. ③ Defendant A was not involved in the operation of the restaurant within the instant hospital; thus, Defendant A did not have a public recruitment relationship with the rest of the Defendants. (2) The claim for fraud by taking advantage of the preparation of drugs, guidance fees, and the violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (the Defendant A, B, and C) among the medical care benefits for medicine expenses, and each violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (the Defendant A, B, and C) ① The pharmaceutical Q directly prepared drugs at the instant hospital or specifically supervised and supervises the preparation of drugs by the pharmaceutical staff of the dispensary’s employees. Since the above medical doctor was also aware that the above Defendants directly prepared drugs to and provided guidance for medication to the inpatients, the above Defendants did not constitute a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by allowing a person without the license to prepare drugs, or by deceiving the victim.

② The Defendants are aware that the instant hospital’s preparation of medicines was lawfully conducted by pharmaceutical Q.