The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the operation of a long-term medical care institution, for which the Defendant had not accepted and supported the report as in this part of the facts charged, is running a long-term medical care institution at home. However, from January 1, 2015 to operate a long-term medical care institution for home care, the Defendant established and reported a long-term medical care institution at home to the Haman on December 1, 2014, but the Defendant did not receive any illegal report on the part of the port at home and filed a long-term medical care institution report on February 9, 2015. Considering these circumstances, the Defendant’s failure to report on home care institution was not unlawful. The operation of the long-term medical care institution at home is not unlawful.

B. The Defendant did not operate a long-term medical care institution, since the part of the operation of a long-term medical care institution was provided to six senior citizens in this part with a short-term care benefit.

2. Determination

A. Although the fact that the non-reported report was accepted on February 9, 2015 at the time of port that the Defendant did not receive a report to a long-term medical care institution on the part of the operation of the long-term medical care institution, as alleged by the Defendant, the court below acknowledged that the Defendant had operated the long-term medical care institution despite being aware that the above report was not accepted, the following circumstances recognized by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was operating the long-term medical care institution despite being aware that the above report was not accepted, ② the Defendant appears to have reported to have been in order to provide the same benefits to the elderly who used the above center during the period of business suspension, who was subject to a business suspension disposition for about three months by the Defendant’s wife, and the part at port appears to have not been accepted on the ground that the Defendant’s wife was in fact operated and the Defendant was suspected to have lent only the name (the Defendant’s relative as well as the Defendant’s relative.