Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and for one year, each of the defendants B.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a pharmacist (license number: F), and Defendant B is not a pharmacist, and two persons concurrently operated H pharmacy from around 1999 to April 30, 2009 in Busan-gu G.

The Defendants conspired to make a false claim for medical care benefits by issuing a false prescription with Defendant B’s relative and branch personal information, and submitting it to the National Health Insurance Corporation for the purpose of preparing funds for the operation of pharmacies.

Defendant B conspiredd as above, although I did not receive treatment for a total of 24 days from October 18, 2006 to November 14, 2008 at the J Council members (representative: K) located near the above H pharmacy, Defendant B requested the interested parties to issue the above Council prescription as if I had received treatment at the above Council members, and received a total of 725 days of the medical care benefit cost claim and a total of 930,490 won from the National Health Insurance Corporation, the victim, as the medical prescription was issued.

From October 1, 2006 to April 30, 2009, the Defendants conspired to receive medical care benefits of KRW 120,300,000,000 as stated in the attached crime list and acquired them by deceit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The police statement of the defendant B;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of investigation reports (a list of unfair requests for health insurance by H pharmacy, etc.) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (All circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant was the first offender, and the full amount of the medical care benefits claims acquired by the crime of this case was refunded, and the damage was restored);

1. Order of community service (Defendant B) Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.