The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is a case in which the Defendant established a hospital without medical personnel after obtaining authorization to establish a medical life consultation only formally in accordance with the Consumer Life Cooperative Act; the Defendant’s husband took over the facilities and equipment of the office-general hospital operated by the Defendant’s husband while operating the hospital; and at the same time, the medical institution claimed medical care benefits costs exceeding 600 million won in total to the National Health Insurance Corporation as if the medical institution was lawfully established, and acquired it by fraud. In light of the background, method, amount of damage, etc., the crime is

These crimes may disturb sound medical order and cause risks to the health of the people, thereby causing a high social risk, and also undermining the financial soundness of the National Health Insurance Corporation that operates the national health insurance system as a financial basis for the insurance premiums paid by the people.

However, the Defendant made efforts to recover damage, such as repayment of KRW 50 million to the Victim's Health Insurance Corporation, etc. The medical practice for patients within the hospital itself was made by qualified medical personnel, and most of the money acquired by the Defendant from the injured party is used as operating expenses of the hospital of this case, and it seems that there is no actual gain of the Defendant. Considering that the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as a whole, all of the circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. The judgment of the court below against the defendant in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant's appeal for conclusion is reasonable.