The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) Regarding false entry of the history of medical care protection, the Defendant’s E medical care center and F medical care center (hereinafter “the instant medical care center”) worked at the medical care center (hereinafter “the instant medical care center”).

H, M, N, T, U, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “H, etc.”) performed the actual duties of care and protection as a person qualified as a medical care doctor.

Along with the fact that the above medical care care care care workers were mainly engaged in other business

In addition, the Enforcement Rule of the Welfare of the Aged Act (Enforcement on August 4, 2008) shall be attached Table.

4. The guidelines for the placement of employees under paragraph 6 (6) (the posting of one physician for medical care for 2.5 persons admitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) (attached Form 1) are sufficient to place a doctor for medical care in a sanatorium if he/she is “replace” and the placed physician for medical care protection should not be entirely “replaced” if he/she is placed in a sanatorium.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s entry of the above H, etc. into the history of medical care protection under the Act on Long-Term Care and Insurance for Older Persons (hereinafter “the instant medical care benefit”) upon filing a claim for long-term care benefit for a person admitted to the instant medical care facility.

2) As to the false entry of a person admitted to a sanatorium, the concept of “a person admitted to a sanatorium” under the instant arrangement should be interpreted only to a beneficiary entitled to long-term care benefits under the Act on Long-term Care and Insurance for Older Persons among the current employees of the sanatorium, and it should not be included in the above person admitted to a sanatorium even if another person is a person subject to

However, in this case, AF, BT, etc. for which the defendant was not admitted to the sanatorium of this case is a person eligible for actual expenses or a waiting person applying for rating, and thus, the defendant did not enter the above AF, etc. into the hospital upon claiming the medical care benefits of this case.

Even if this is not a false entry, it can not be considered as a false entry.

3) As to the application of the instant assignment standards, the Welfare of the Aged Act.