사기
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Around February 8, 2002, the Defendant subscribed to the “C” of the Victim B Company at the Defendant’s home and subscribed to the “D” of the said Victim on or before the 15th day of the same month, the Defendant entered into an insurance contract with the following questions: (a) the Defendant’s obligation to notify each of the above insurance contract in the letter of subscription to the said insurance contract stating, “Is the fact that the Defendant was under diagnosis, examination, diagnosis, treatment, medication, hospitalization, surgery, or close inspection from a doctor within the last five years due to urology, etc.; and (b) concluded an insurance contract with the O
However, there was a fact that the Defendant, from August 31, 1998 to April 14, 2001, was suffering from urology tests and insulinizing urology at the F Hospital located in the former North Korean Chang-gun E Hospital 19 times in total.
On September 12, 2008, the Defendant received 34,850,000 won from September 12, 2008 to January 2, 2013, including the receipt of KRW 900,00 as insurance money by claiming insurance money from the victim on the ground that the Defendant was receiving medical treatment due to urology, and acquired it on four occasions as shown in the attached crime list.
2. In order to establish a crime of fraud, a judgment must be obtained the benefit of property or property by deceiving another person to cause mistake and inducing a dispositive act thereby.
However, according to the testimony made by the witness G at this court, around 2005, when the victim B Co., Ltd. entered into each of the instant insurance contracts with the Defendant, the Defendant had already been aware of the fact that the Defendant had been suffering from urology before entering into each of the instant insurance contracts. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the victim B Co., Ltd continued to pay insurance proceeds to the Defendant with the awareness of the Defendant’s breach of duty
Therefore, even if the defendant did not notify the intention to acquire insurance money at the time of entering into each of the insurance contracts of this case and caused the victim B corporation to make a mistake in this part.