A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the part not guilty of the Defendants can be found to have obtained insurance money by excessively hospitalized in order to receive insurance money in the absence of sufficient care or necessity of long-term hospitalization. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.

B. The guilty portion against Defendant G (e.g., a fine of KRW 2,000,00) of the lower court’s conviction against Defendant G is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts against the Defendants

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, seems to have shown that the Defendants were hospitalized due to the occurrence of an actual disease, etc., and there was no other fact that there was a disease, etc., which is the cause of hospitalization as stated in this part of the facts charged.

In the absence of evidence that there was no act of hospitalization itself, ② part of the Defendants were born during the period of hospitalization, but it is difficult to readily conclude that it was out of social norms in light of the frequency, reason, etc., and there is lack other materials to deem that the substance of treatment against the Defendants constituted an act of outpatient treatment. ③ there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendants conspired with the Defendants, failed to demand the Defendants, or received excessive or unnecessary hospitalization for the convenience of the Defendants, and the Defendants cannot be found guilty solely on the grounds that the Defendants received hospitalized treatment at the same hospital as other co-defendants who were found guilty, and ④ the examination results on the propriety of hospitalization prepared by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service.