The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the Defendants 1) in relation to the violation of the Medical Service Act relating to L hospital, Defendant A raised some funds in relation to the establishment of L hospital, but the subject who established and operated L hospital is Defendant B, and Defendant A merely worked as an employee of L hospital, and it cannot be said that Defendant A and B engaged in a business partnership or established and operated L hospital together.

B) As to the false claim, such as the cost of treatment materials, the limited company M (hereinafter “M”) is a normal company that sells various surgery materials and products to various medical institutions other than L hospitals and operates them. Thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to establish a company that has no substance and claim for false treatment materials costs, etc. by establishing a company that has no substance.

C) Although Defendant A borrowed money from P with respect to the receipt of economic benefits, such as the adoption of drugs, Defendant A merely borrowed money from P regardless of the delivery of L hospital drugs, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have received economic benefits from a drug wholesaler for the purpose of promoting the sale of drugs.

2) An inspector X Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “X”) operated a cafeteria within the premises of this L Hospital, as long as the cafeterias, the personnel expenses of cooks, and public charges related to cafeterias were borne by Defendant A and B.

must be viewed.

Even if Defendant A and B directly operated a cafeteria, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of part of the facts charged, regardless of whether the Defendants directly employed dietitians and cooks and directly employed the cafeterias, as long as the said Defendants filed a claim for food-related care benefit, such as dietitians, cooking charges, and additional charges on cafeterias, in violation of the Medical Service Act.