The judgment below

Among them, the part against the Defendants (excluding the part of the application for compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. The following facts in the process of the lawsuit are recognized by the record or significant to this court.

1) The lower court convicted Defendant A, Co-Defendant B, E, and C of violation of the Medical Service Act against Defendant C, violation of the National Health Insurance Act, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and acquitted Defendant D of each of the above facts charged.

Defendant A appealed against the above judgment on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing, and misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of facts, Defendant C, who was the joint defendant of the trial prior to the transmission of the refund, and misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing, on the grounds that the prosecutor appealed against Defendant C, who was the joint defendant of the trial prior to the transmission of the refund

2) In the trial before remanding the case, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the ancillary charges to the Defendant D, aiding and abetting the violation of the Medical Service Act, aiding and abetting the violation of the National Health Insurance Act, and violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the trial prior to returning the case was permitted.

3) The appellate court prior to the remand dismissed Defendant A’s appeal, and there is a ground to believe that Defendant C’s mistake was erroneous in facts prior to the remand.

The court found the defendant D guilty of aiding and abetting the violation of the Medical Service Act, the National Health Insurance Act, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and found the defendant D guilty of the ancillary charge while maintaining the verdict of innocence as to the primary charge.

On the above judgment, Defendant A made each of the above decisions on the grounds that Defendant A violated the rules of evidence law and misunderstanding of legal principles, and that Defendant D violated the rules of evidence law, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the principle of substantial direct trial.

4) The Supreme Court reversed the part against the Defendants in the judgment before remanding ex officio on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles, and remanded it to this court.

(b)in this case;