Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous as a matter of fact.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court: (a) the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone was proved to the extent that the Defendant was extremely excessive or unnecessary hospitalized treatment as stated in the instant facts charged, or that he intentionally claimed the insurance proceeds with awareness of such fact, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and the innocence was pronounced on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove it.

① There is no circumstance that the Defendant complained of false symptoms to a doctor in charge for receiving insurance proceeds, unilaterally requested for hospitalized treatment by exaggerationing symptoms, or continuously collected hospitalized treatment without disregarding this despite the request for discharge from the doctor in charge. In addition, the doctor in charge conspired with the Defendant and unfairly increased the number of days of hospitalized treatment for the Defendant, or conducted false diagnosis in collusion with the Defendant.

There is no objective data to be suspected.

② “Contents of the analysis of medical records” prepared in G does not contain any material to ascertain the credibility of the document’s credibility, such as the public confidence, and the statement made by H and I by the witness of the lower court at the lower court’s court is merely a material to the insurance company’s employee. ③ The reply to the request for deliberation on the propriety of hospitalization by the Health Insurance Review and Evaluation Institute of Korea (hereinafter “Evaluation Institute”) to the Health Insurance Review and Evaluation Institute of Korea (hereinafter “Evaluation Institute”) is the result of the instant review.