The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 40 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4 million.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) It is true that the Defendants, who violated the Medical Service Act, leased the 4th floor building located near the G convalescent Hospital (hereinafter “the instant convalescent hospital”), and operated the said building as “I”, and provided ten rooms to the patients hospitalized in the instant convalescent hospital.

However, the Defendants’ “I” did not create a new hospitalization room exceeding the number of beds permitted by the competent authorities, but operated to provide the patient with a pleasant and comfortable accommodation environment by keeping the number of sickbeds in the permitted convalescent hospital as is. As such, among the matters permitted for the establishment of medical institutions under the Medical Service Act, it does not constitute a change in the important matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (the details of changes in the facilities following changes in the main facilities, such as hospitalization rooms).

2) Since there are only 10 rooms, the number of patients using the “I” is very low, and the patients have been in charge of eating after being treated in the ward in the ward in the instant convalescent hospital except for time, and the “I” itself thought the patients to be one hospital in the vicinity of the instant convalescent hospital, and Defendant A was waiting for the medical staff at all times as a part of the night, even at the night during which the time was the time, by taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff by deceiving the victims of the National Health Insurance Corporation and by receiving travel expenses for the patients hospitalized in the “I”; (b) obtained the payment of the medical staff wage and travel expenses for the patients hospitalized in the “I”.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) Since the Defendant did not have been hospitalized in the instant convalescent Table 1 attached to the judgment below, the Defendant did not distinguish the period of hospitalization in the instant convalescent hospital from the period of hospitalization in the instant convalescent hospital and the entire period of hospitalization in the “I”, the amount of the medical care benefits paid to the relevant patient for the entire period.