The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,800,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles are followed by the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (a) the JI, J, K, K, M, M,O, Q, Q, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Z; AB, AE, AC, AE, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AJ, AK, Amm, AL, F, AM, AP, AP, AP, AP, AP, AP, AP, AP, AF, AS, AS, ATS, AT, AB, AW, BA, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, or Q, and the Defendant actually prepared the instant medical treatment record of the patient.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the case of fraud, in the case of fraud, in which money is acquired through deception several times against the same victim, if the criminal intent is single and if the method of crime is the same, only the inclusive crime of fraud is established (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4538 Decided March 10, 2005).B. B. B. prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the following circumstances recognized by the court below, are as follows: the victim of the instant crime is the National Health Insurance Corporation, namely, the victim of the instant crime is single, and the method of committing the instant crime is the same as the method of committing the instant crime by preparing a false medical record and claiming medical care costs. The Defendant continuously committed the instant crime from January 1, 2009 to August 20, 201, and the criminal intent has been renewed.

Comprehensively taking account of the absence of circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant crime constitutes a single comprehensive crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and dealt with the crime of this case as a substantive concurrent crime is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.