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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding, etc.) was prepared by Defendant A with a false diagnosis that there is a permanent disability, even though there is an obstacle that falls under the market damage to Defendant D, and Defendant D submitted such false diagnosis and acquired insurance proceeds.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged, has erred and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the person who works for the head of the H hospital located in the Yesan-gu M in the Jeonju-si.

F as a non-qualified certified claims adjuster, the fact was introduced by the defendant A, who will be entrusted with damage evaluation services from patients suffering from simple injury who are capable of defending, to be issued a certificate of disability with permanent disability, and the patient N, C, defendant D, B, and the patient-friendly E, the mother of the patient G, who will receive excessive insurance proceeds based on the permanent disability diagnosis and receive 10 to 20% of the amount of insurance proceeds.

Defendant

A1) On June 11, 2015, the Defendant, at the office outside the hospital’s office, drafted a false diagnosis report on the post-disabled disorder in the column of the content of the post-disabled disorder, even though the Defendant was not permanent disability, on the following grounds: (a) at the office outside the hospital’s office; and (b) from March 9, 2015 upon request of the said F, the Defendant prepared the written diagnosis report on the post-disabled disorder for N, the patient suffering from the above time to the above time; (c) the complete wave of the external side of the rupture, the rupture rupture rupture, the external side of the rupture rupture, the rupture rupture rupture, the rupture rupture rupture rupture, the rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture r.

B. The Defendant, at the above office around August 10, 2015, received a request from the above F and received the request from the above F, from March 19, 2015 to the above time, was the complete scopic scoptyp and internal scopical scopical scophy for C, a patient who was treated as a patient from the above F