The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was discounted by the Defendant under the National Health Insurance Act, and induced patients for profit.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the doctor of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D shop 201 E dental surgery.

No person shall exempt or discount personal expenses under the National Health Insurance Act, etc., or introduce, arrange, or induce patients to medical institutions for profit.

Nevertheless, around September 30, 2015, the Defendant employed daily job advertising personnel at the above D apartment on the front of the D apartment, and divided the 2,000 won of the brush and dental publicity leaflets into players. The Defendant allowed patients to make a horse at a discount of 20%, 50,000 won for medical insurance benefits, 20% for medical care, 50,000 won for flusium, and flusium free of charge for flusium. In fact, around October 2015, the Defendant engaged in the act of attracting patients to the above D apartment by receiving 3,000 won for the patients who wish to be admitted to the above D apartment and removing flusium (meing) for profit-making purposes.

3. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant's act does not constitute the act of discounting the principal's share or inducing the patient for profit.

On the other hand, the defendant was acquitted.

4. On the other hand, in light of the language and text of Article 27(3) of the Medical Service Act, where an insured person under the National Health Insurance Act, his/her dependent, and a beneficiary under the Medical Care Benefits Act, bear part of the cost of benefits, the part of the cost of benefits should be interpreted as having been borne by the medical personnel. As medical expenses for medical treatment not subject to benefits under the National Health Insurance Act and the Medical Care Benefits Act, the amount should be freely determined by the medical personnel and the patient himself/herself bear in full.