In the Health Insurance Review Evaluation Institute, even if there was a reply that the hospitalization treatment of Defendant 1 was inappropriate in a considerable part, it cannot be considered sufficient data to determine whether the hospitalization is appropriate, and thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant 1 of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criminal intent of defraudation.

2. The summary of the facts charged knows that the Defendant would be paid a large amount of insurance money in addition to the amount of hospitalization normally paid in the case of a long-term hospitalization with the same sick person, and that the Defendant would be sufficient for common medical treatment because of the result of the examination that the long-term hospitalization is unnecessary or that there is no special opinion and no specific treatment is given. However, the Defendant had subscribed to several insurance companies to buy several insurance contracts, and had a large amount of insurance money used for living expenses, etc. by deceiving a large amount of insurance money in a way that it is easy to issue a medical certificate after a long-term hospitalization

On March 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received hospitalized treatment for about seven days from around March 28, 2012 to around 16 days as “the base of the Hulleume and tension,” and (b) received insurance money from the victim insurance company on July 25, 201 to October 7, 2014, such as receiving KRW 1,122,910 from July 25, 201 to receiving KRW 1,122,910 for the same day as the insurance money; and (c) obtained the delivery of KRW 43,797,528 as the insurance money from the victim insurance company on a total of 26 occasions as indicated in the list of crimes, as indicated in the list of crimes.

3...