All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence imposed on Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

B: Defendant B only operated Q hospital in Ansan-si, and there was no fact that Defendant B had operated R hospital in Ansan-si.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the establishment of a violation of the Medical Service Act on the ground that Defendant B operated more than one medical institution was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on the mistake of facts and the interpretation of the "Operation" under Article 33(8) of the Medical Service Act.

Even if a violation of the Medical Service Act is established, the sentence of the lower court (two million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of Defendant A and the Prosecutor, the amount of fraud under Articles 1 and 2.2.2(b) of the judgment of the court below reaches KRW 269,526,760 in total, and the violation of the Medical Service Act under Article 2.2.1(b) of the judgment of the court below constitutes a violation of the Medical Service Act under which the legislative purpose of the Medical Service Act is to establish a sound medical order and protect the health of the people, and thus, the liability for the crime is not somewhat weak, and there is a prior conviction of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to similar criminal records.

However, in the case of fraud under Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, it is more favorable that the victim did not establish a medical institution without qualification, but the National Health Insurance Corporation did not pay insurance money for non-medical personnel's medical practice. In the case of fraud under Paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below, it is more favorable that the victim did not pay insurance money to non-medical personnel.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age of Defendant A, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the theory of changes, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as excessive or too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s argument are with merit.