Since the Defendants were hospitalized in P Hospital due to their body and received substantive hospitalized treatment, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of fraud was erroneous.

Judgment

The relevant legal doctrine refers to the treatment under the observation and management of a medical doctor while staying in a hospital for more than six hours according to the following provisions: (a) where continuous observation of a medical doctor is required with respect to side effects or incidental effects of a drug with very low resistance to, or administered by, the patient’s disease; (b) where the management of drugs and drinking foods is needed; (c) where the patient’s pain treatment is continuously needed; (d) where the patient’s condition is in a state where the patient is unable to cope with the pain or where the patient’s risk of infection exists; and (e) where the patient stays in the hospital, etc.; and (e) where the patient suffers from the treatment while staying in the hospital for more than six hours pursuant to the provisions of “detaileds on the criteria and methods for the application of medical care benefits” as publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare; (d) however, whether the patient remains in the hospital cannot be determined based solely on the

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, and by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of paternity, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2941, Jun. 15, 2007). Also, there is a reason to receive insurance proceeds.