All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant A’s mistake of the fact that Defendant A was recommended to make an investment by Defendant E, and Defendant A was invested in the I pharmacy as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) and was employed as a computer unit. Defendant A was not involved in the establishment and operation of the instant pharmacy.

Even though the person who is responsible for and operated the pharmacy of this case is found to have committed a violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act against Defendant E-C. (2), since the pharmacist directly prepared and sold the drug, it does not constitute a crime of fraud against the National Health Insurance Corporation, unlike the case where the pharmacist prepared and sold the drug.

(3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the fact and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant E, “A person who enters the second floor of the instant pharmacy and takes over a pharmacy by borrowing a pharmacy acquisition fund from Defendant E, and, in fact, established and operated the instant pharmacy before taking over the pharmacy, and the instant pharmacy did not enter into the second floor of the instant pharmacy and gave up the pharmacy acquisition without having a prescription of 80.

Defendant

A and E are not employed.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant D (1) was the investor of the instant pharmacy, who misleads the Plaintiff into mistake, and took over the instant pharmacy on the condition that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million from the lease cost of the instant pharmacy store and KRW 30 million from the pharmacy’s liability, and actually took over the pharmacy and actually took over the pharmacy.

Defendant

A is only a computer source employed by Defendant D. (2) The sentence (10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

4) Defendant E (1) When investigating the prosecutor’s office of mistake, the J (her husband of Defendant A) and Defendant A’s wife, which is the high-class social relationship.