All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the monthly job offer advertisements posted by Defendant A, the Hague Hunter M’s statement; (b) the Defendants’ account transaction details; (c) the special terms and conditions of the lease agreement; (d) the contents of the Defendant A and E hospital management pocket book and the draft of confirmation; and (e) the statement of nurseO, etc., the Defendants conspired to operate the “office-general hospital” as indicated in the instant facts charged, thereby preventing the Defendants from committing a violation of the Medical Service Act; and (c) the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the medical care benefit costs of the National Health Insurance; and

2. Evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and, in particular, the money such as rent for buildings, rent for facilities, management expenses, etc. that Defendant B paid to Defendant A is based on the sub-lease of the building and the lease contract for facilities (Evidence No. 204-206, Evidence No. 1, No. 507-509, No. 122) concluded between the above Defendants. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that it is difficult to recognize that Defendant B paid rent to Defendant A is excessive than ordinary ones, and that it is difficult to recognize that Defendant B distributed the proceeds of hospital operation. ② There was the fact that money was deposited from the U Bank Account in the name of Defendant B which was deposited with Gwon medical care benefits to the Bank Account in Q Q Q’s name, but Q was presumed to have been deposited as an assistant nurse, and thus, it appears to have been paid to Defendant C as rent for the above building at the time of sub-lease.