When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Although the Defendant, on July 17, 2012, did not need to be hospitalized to the victim LIG Damage Insurance Co., Ltd., who purchased an insurance policy for which the insurance amount, such as daily allowances, was paid, the Defendant was able to receive the insurance money, and was hospitalized to receive the insurance money. On July 17, 2012, the Defendant was hospitalized to C’s members located in YY-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF). However, the fact was that the Defendant, at home, was in a daily life, who had received the pain treatment while running the daily life such as diving, but was issued a written confirmation of hospitalization as if he had received the above LIG damage insurance amount, and that he received the hospital treatment by deceptioning the insurance amount from 36014.7.7.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A report on internal investigation (in relation to the cases of entry into a house for internal investigation, etc.);

1. Application of communications details, medical analysis, insurance claim documents, and Acts and subordinate statutes on medical records;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347(1) of the option of punishment (conformatively, a public prosecutor is subject to a fine) (Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act). The court recognizes the criminal facts of the criminal facts charged as substantive concurrent crimes, but recognizes the same as they are, on the other hand, a single comprehensive crime, even if the legal evaluation on the number of crimes charged as substantive concurrent crimes is different, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, and thus, it does not affect the defense of the defendant. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21,