All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the violation of the Medical Service Act due to the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention and the preparation of false medical records, etc. against F related to insurance fraud claims by F, the Defendant merely ordered Co-Defendant B to prepare and provide medical records as to the above FF patient as stated in the medical examination and treatment. Although the above F patient did not instruct Co-Defendant B to prepare and provide false medical records for which no medical examination and treatment was provided, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspension of execution, 3 million won of fine, and 80 hours of community service order) sentenced by the court below

B. In light of all the evidence, including misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below), the court below acquitted the defendant as to C's violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention related to C's Claim, violation of the Medical Service Act due to preparation of false medical records, etc. as to C, and violation of the Medical Service Act and preparation of false medical certificates due to preparation of false medical records, etc., there are errors in misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s determination on the part of the Defendant’s assertion on the mistake of facts, and the lower court stated in the Prosecutor’s Office and this court that Defendant A would be able to carry out insurance-related documents that Defendant A wants, and at the time, 100% verification was conducted since Defendant A was not less than 2 years since F subscribed to dental insurance, and the X-ray photograph was confirmed to have not been carried out. However, the lower court ordered Defendant A to issue the document.