Defendant 3 is punished by imprisonment for 10 months, by a fine of 5,00,000 won, and by a fine of 1,000,000 won, respectively.

When Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 did not pay each of the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in each workhouse for a period calculated by converting 40,000 won into one day.

101 days of detention days before the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the period of custody in the old prison as to the punishment for the defendant 3 and the above fine for the same defendant 4.

However, with respect to Defendant 3, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 4 and the same Defendant 5 order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fines.

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 6’s appeal are dismissed.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

(1) Defendant 1

㈎ 원심 판시 보험금 편취 방조 부분

Hospitalization refers to the case where the patient was hospitalized in a fixed hospital for the purpose of treatment, operation, stability, etc., and the patient remains in the hospital for not less than 6 hours a day after receiving necessary doctor's treatment and nursing care at the fixed hospital. Whether the patient was hospitalized in the hospital or not belongs to the inherent authority of the doctor to determine whether the patient was hospitalized at night, and whether the patient was hospitalized in the hospital or not belongs to the inherent authority of the doctor. However, both the defendant 2, the non-indicted 2, the defendant 3, 4, and 6 were patients with internal illness, and the above defendant and the non-indicted 1 did not know of the need for hospital treatment, and thus, the above defendant and the non-indicted 1 did not receive a written confirmation from the above (the name of the hospital omitted) that the defendant and the non-indicted 1 did not receive a written confirmation from the above hospital, and thus, the court below found the above defendant and the non-indicted 1 to have been hospitalized for the purpose of treatment and treatment of the patient. Accordingly, the court below found the defendant and the above non-indicted 1 and the defendant were assigned.

㈏ 원심 판시 요양급여비용 등 편취 부분

According to the concept of hospitalization as seen above, Defendant 4 and Defendant 6 were actually hospitalized in the hospital (name omitted). Thus, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty on the ground that it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 received money from the above Corporation in the name of the medical care benefit cost due to sending a written claim for medical care benefit costs containing false facts that Defendant 1 provided hospitalized treatment at the above hospital, etc. to the National Health Insurance Corporation.

(2) Defendant 2

Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 1, the husband of the above Defendant, were hospitalized in (name of hospital omitted) etc.; thus, the above Defendant alone or in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 cannot be deemed to have acquired the insurance money by obtaining a false certificate of hospitalization as if the above Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 were hospitalized in the above hospital, etc., but the lower court found the Defendant guilty.

(3) Defendant 3 and 5

Although Defendant 5 did not submit the grounds of appeal within the due deadline for submission of the grounds of appeal, Defendant 5 will examine ex officio the grounds for appeal filed after the deadline for submission of the grounds of appeal.

㈎ 사실오인

Defendant 3: (a) was hospitalized in the hospital at night during the period of hospitalization; (b) however, it cannot be deemed that the above Defendant continued to undergo outpatient treatment, rather than the hospital, since it continued to undergo outpatient treatment; (c) whether the patient was hospitalized at night in the hospital cannot be the basis for determining whether the patient was hospitalized; and (d) “where the patient was hospitalized in the hospital for at least 6 hours a day for accommodation, surgery, aptitude, stability, etc.” As such, if the patient was hospitalized in the hospital and received necessary doctor’s treatment and nursing in the hospital at a fixed time after undergoing the hospital, it shall be deemed that the patient was hospitalized, and even if the above Defendant was hospitalized during the hospital, it shall be deemed that there was no error in the judgment of the court below that the patient was hospitalized in the hospital and the above hospital (name of hospital omitted) and received a false confirmation of the need for chronic infection, etc., and thus, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the above Defendant and the above Defendant, who was hospitalized in the hospital and the hospital (the above hospital).

㈏ 법리오해(피고인 5)

Although Defendant 5 was served with a summary order imposing a fine of one million won on Defendant 5 and filed a request for formal trial, the lower court sentenced the above Defendant to a fine of two million won exceeding that imposed on the above Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the prohibition of disadvantageous changes.

(4) Defendant 4

Defendant 4 was actually hospitalized in (name of hospital omitted) and thus, the court below found Defendant 4 guilty on the ground that the above Defendant could not be deemed to have obtained insurance money by obtaining a false certificate of hospitalization as if he had received hospital hospital treatment despite having received hospital hospital treatment. However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

(5) Defendant 6

Since Defendant 6 actually received hospitalized treatment at (name of hospital omitted), the court below found Defendant 6 guilty on the ground that the above Defendant could not be deemed to have obtained insurance money by obtaining a false certificate of hospitalization as if he had received hospital outpatient treatment even after receiving hospital outpatient treatment, and that he could not be deemed to have obtained the insurance money by using it.

B. Unreasonable sentencing (Defendant 1, 2)

Considering the circumstances of the instant case, each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 1, two years of suspended sentence, ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 2, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Error of mistake

(1) Concept of hospitalization

㈎ 입원에 관한 보건복지부 고시

(1) The detailed matters concerning the standards and methods of medical care benefits (as of July 1, 2001, the Ministry of Health and Welfare announced in 200-73, 2001-36, and 1, 2001) shall be subject to medical care fees for inpatients (including direct acts, such as medical examination, disease treatment, consultation, education, etc. offered to hospitalized patients, and indirect acts, such as preparation of medical records and medical treatment plans), ② management fees for inpatients (including nursing, preparation of nursing records, etc., and assistance to patients), ③ hospital management fees (including expenses for spatial use including non-surgical and auxiliary facilities, laundry expenses including clothes, bedclothes, facilities management expenses, and facilities depreciation costs of the facilities).

㈏ 입원의 개념

In a case where continuous observation by a medical personnel is required in relation to the side effects or incidental effects of the drugs which are very low resistance to or are administered by the patient's disease, in a case where the continuous control is required for the management of nutritional conditions and the foods and plants in intake, the treatment of the patient's pains are needed, and the patient's condition is in a situation where the patient's condition is unable to cope with the pain or where the patient's risk of infection exists, etc., and the patient is staying in the hospital and receiving treatment, according to all the provisions of the above Ministry of Health and Welfare's detailed guidelines and methods for the application of medical care benefits, etc., which are the notice of the above Ministry of Health and Welfare, the hospitalization means that the patient undergoes treatment while staying in the hospital for at least six hours.

Therefore, even if a patient was unable to stay in a hospital for more than 6 hours or was staying in a hospital for more than 6 hours even if he/she had been assigned a fixed hospital after undergoing the procedure for hospitalization in the form of a patient, the time of actual treatment is merely part of the time, and only he/she remains in a hospital without undergoing observation or supervision by the medical staff for the remaining time. If the contents and purpose of the treatment received by the patient can be sufficiently achieved due to the outpatient treatment, it shall be deemed that it is not the hospital treatment but the hospital treatment.

I will look at the system of diagnosis and treatment (name omitted of hospital), the contents of the treatment received at the hospital, the frequency of outing or outside the hospital during the period of hospitalization, whether the treatment was actually received, the details of the insurance coverage, etc. by each of the non-indicted 2, 3, 4, 6, and 1.

(2) Details of treatment, the conduct of patients during the duration of hospitalization, and the details of insurance coverage;

㈎ 피고인 등의 보험가입과 보험약관상의 입원특약내용

According to the evidence duly admitted and duly admitted by the court below, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 2 were married with the victim Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and the Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and subscribed to the so-called “insurance company” listed in the annexed Table (3) of the court below’s judgment to pay insurance money for the occurrence of each insurance company’s disease as an insurance accident. Defendant 3 purchased each insurance company’s insurance company’s column listed in the annexed Table (4) of the court below’s judgment, and Defendant 4 purchased the above insurance company’s insurance policy listed in the annexed Table (5) of the crime sight table of the court below’s judgment. Defendant 6 purchased the above Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd.’s insurance policy. However, according to the agreement of hospitalization under the insurance purchased by Defendant 3, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 2, and Defendant 3, according to the above agreement of hospitalization, the insurance company’s insurance company’s total amount of 150,000 won and/or more than the above insurance company’s total amount of 10,00,00,00,000 days of adult subsidies.

㈏ (병원 이름 생략)의 진료체계

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, (name omitted) the above 0-day medical care room and the above 0-day medical care room were conducted by 10 patients and 9 patients, including the above 0-day medical care room and the above 4-day medical care room. Non-indicted 2, the above 5-day medical care room and the above 0-day medical care room were provided to the above 0-day medical care hospital, and the patient was provided to the above 4-day medical care room and the patient was provided to the above 0-day medical care room, and the patient was provided to the above 1-day medical care room and the patient was provided to the above 4-day medical care room. The above 1-day medical care room and the patient was provided to the above 0-day medical care room and the patient was provided to the above 1-day medical care room and the patient was provided to the above 1-day medical care room. The above 1-day medical care room was not provided to the above 1-day hospital.

㈐ 피고인 2

(Name) The defendant 1 who is the president of a hospital is to receive 30 clocks treatment and 4 clocks treatment per day after being mixed with 30 clocks treatment and 5 clocks treatment, 3 clocks treatment and 5 clocks treatment and treatment for 30 clocks treatment and 5 clocks treatment and treatment for 4 clocks treatment and 5 clocks treatment and treatment for 30 clocks treatment and 5 clocks treatment and treatment for 30 clocks treatment and 5 clocks treatment and treatment for 30 clocks treatment and 5 clocks treatment and treatment for 30 clocks treatment, treatment and treatment for 30 clocks treatment and treatment for 30 clocks treatment and treatment for 20 clocks treatment and treatment for 1 clocks treatment and treatment.

그런데 원심이 적법하게 조사하여 채택한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인 2는 보험금을 타낼 목적으로 2000. 9. 27.경부터 부천시 소재 한마음정형외과에서 형식상으로만 입원수속을 밟은 후 실제로는 낮에만 위 병원에 있고 밤에는 자신의 집으로 돌아와 잠을 자는 생활을 계속하던 중 2000. 10. 20.경 옆구리가 아파서 (병원 이름 생략)으로 진료를 받으러 갔는데 위 병원에서 신우신염 등의 진단을 받고 원장인 피고인 1로부터 링겔주사는 입원을 해야만 투여받을 수 있으니 입원을 하라는 권유을 받은 사실, 이에 피고인 2가 자신의 아이들을 돌봐야 하기때문에 입원할 수 없다고 하자 위 피고인 1은 피고인 2에게 ‘매일 와서 근육주사, 레이저침, 링겔주사만 맞고 잠은 집에 가서 자도 된다’면서 입원을 권유하였고, 위와 같은 권유에 따라 위 피고인은 2000. 10. 23. 위 (병원 이름 생략)에서 입원수속을 한 사실, 그러나 위 피고인은 2000. 10. 23.부터 2000. 11. 27.까지의 입원기간 중 매일 오전 10시경 위 병원에 가서 엉덩이 근육주사를 맞고 40분 정도 혈관레이저치료를 받으면서 원장인 피고인 1의 회진에 임한 후 오전 11시부터 약 2시간 동안 1000cc의 링겔주사를 투여받은 다음 다시 엉덩이 근육주사를 받고 치료약을 수령하여 오후 2시경 병원에서 나오는 등 평균 4시간 정도의 치료를 받았고(혈관레이저치료실의 병실이 부족하면 링겔주사를 먼저 투여받은 후 혈관레이저치료를 받기도 하였다.), 초음파검사를 받는 날만 오후 4시경 병원에서 나오는 것을 반복하였고, 위 병원에서 거의 식사도 하지 아니한 사실, 당시 위 피고인은 위 병원에서 입원환자들이 링겔주사 등도 맞지 않고 약만 수령하여 집으로 돌아가고, 피고인 1이 회진할 당시 환자들이 병실에 있지 않아도 환자를 찾지 아니하고 간호사들 등에게 환자관리 등에 주의도 주지 아니한 채 그냥 다른 환자에게 회진하러 가는 것을 목격하기도 한 사실, 그 후 피고인 2는 2001. 5. 18.경 옆구리에 통증이 있어서 다시 위 병원에 진료를 받으러 갔다가 원장인 피고인 1로부터 입원을 권유받고 두 번째로 위 병원에 입원수속을 하였는데, 당시 위 피고인 1로부터 보험가입여부에 대한 질문을 받았고 위 병원 임상병리사인 공소외 공소외 2로부터 “보험들어놓은 거 있쟎아, 피고인 2씨, 그러면 큰 부담없쟎아” 라는 말과 함께 입원할 경우 보험회사로부터 지급받는 1일 보험금수령액 등에 관한 질문을 받은 사실, 그 후 피고인 2는 2001. 5. 18.부터 2001. 8. 17.까지 82일 동안 계속하여 낮에는 위 병원에서 치료를 받고 밤에는 집에서 잠을 자곤 하였는데(진료기록부에는 위 피고인이 위 병원에 2001. 5. 18. 입원하여 2001. 6. 30. 퇴원하였다가, 다시 2001. 7. 6. 입원하여 2001. 8. 10. 퇴원한 것으로 기록되어 있다. 한편 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고인 1은 2001. 5. 18.부터 2001. 8. 17.까지 82일 동안의 치료기간에 대하여 2001. 5. 18.부터 2001. 6. 17.까지의 31일을 입원기간으로 기재한 입원확인서와 2001. 7. 6.부터 2001. 8. 7.까지 33일을 입원기간으로 기재한 입원확인서 2장을 피고인 2에게 발급하여 주었다.), 위 피고인은 위 기간 중 입원확인서에 입원기간으로 기재된 2001. 5. 18.경부터 2001. 6. 17.경까지 처음 한 달 동안은 처음 위 병원에 입원할 당시와 마찬가지로 오전 10시경 위 병원에 가서 엉덩이 근육주사를 맞고 40분 정도 혈관레이저치료를 받으면서 원장인 피고인 1의 회진에 임한 후 오전 11시부터 약 2시간 동안 1000cc의 링겔주사를 투여받은 후 다시 엉덩이 근육주사를 받고 치료약을 수령하여 오후 2시경 병원에서 나와서 평균 4시간 정도의 치료를 받았고, 초음파검사를 받는 날만 오후 5시경 병원에서 나왔으며, 나머지 약 50일 정도(입원확인서에 입원기간으로 기재된 2001. 7. 6.경부터 2001. 8. 7.경까지의 기간포함)는 혈관레이저치료를 받은 후 종전보다 투여량이 줄어 든 500cc의 링겔주사를 맞고 엉덩이가 아프다는 이유로 근육주사는 맞지 아니한 채 치료약만 수령하여 오후 1시 이전에 위 병원에서 나와서 평균 3시간 정도의 치료만을 받았고, 심지어는 다른 환자들이 위 병원의 간호사들에게 링겔주사를 맞지 않겠다고 말하는 것을 보고 위 피고인도 간호사들에게 말하고서 위 500cc의 링겔주사를 맞지 아니한 날도 자주 있었던 사실, 피고인 1은 2001. 8. 10.경 피고인 2로부터 입원확인서를 발급해 달라는 요청을 받고 환자를 너무 오래 입원시키면 건강보험공단에서 의료수가액을 삭감한다는 등의 이유를 들면서 2001. 5. 18.부터 2001. 8. 17.까지 위 82일간의 치료기간 전부에 대하여 하나의 입원확인서를 발급하여 주는 대신에 2001. 5. 18.부터 2001. 6. 17.까지의 31일을 입원기간으로 기재한 입원확인서와 2001. 7. 6.부터 2001. 8. 7.까지 33일을 입원기간으로 기재한 입원확인서 2장을 위 피고인에게 발급하여 준 사실, 위 피고인은 2000.경부터 자신 명의로 6개, 남편인 박원길 명의로 11개, 딸들 명의로 23개 합계 40개의 보험상품에 가입하였는데, 많이 가입하였을 때는 합계 50개의 보험에 가입하여 한 달 보험료로 합계 약 700만원을 납입하기도 한 사실, 위 피고인은 자신과 박원길, 딸들이 허위로 입원한 것처럼 가장하여 보험회사로부터 수령한 보험금으로 보험료를 납부하여 왔고, 2001. 7.경부터 2002. 6.경까지는 보험설계사로 근무하기도 한 사실, 위 병원측에서는 위 피고인이 받은 입원치료에 관하여 국민건강보험공단에게 의료수가를 청구하지 아니한 사실, 한편 위 피고인은 2001. 2. 21.경 부천시 소재 (의원 이름 생략)의원에서 추간판탈출증 등의 진단을 받아 입원수속을 밟은 후 2001. 3. 31.까지 위 병원에서 치료를 받았는데 위 기간 동안에도 위 피고인은 아침 9시에 위 병원에 가서 물리치료를 2번 받고, 2번에 걸쳐 주사를 맞고, 치료약을 복용하기만 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

㈑ 공소외 박원길

(Name of Hospital Name) The medical records prepared by Defendant 1, the president of which obtained 3-4 p.m. for Nonindicted Party 1, have been mixed with 10 p.m. for 91 days from January 10, 201, and until April 10, 201, Nonindicted Party 1 received 3-4 p.m. for 10 p.m. for 10c. for 10c. for 10 p.m. for 100 p. for 10 p.m. for 10 p.m. for 10 p. for 10 p.m. for 10 p.m. for 25 p. for 10 p.m. for 10 p.m. for 10 p.m. for al., 3-4 p.m. for alc., al. al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al., al.m. for 10 p.

However, according to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, non-indicted 1 received treatment at the above hospital on January 10, 201 through April 10, 2001 at the time of entrance, the first hospital's first time, and received treatment, such as blood radyer treatment, neighboring meat treatment, and Hegel treatment, and entered the hospital's house. Around 25 times, the hospital received treatment, and he did not receive treatment for about 30 minutes after reducing the treatment time due to the adjustment of the quantity of Hegel's injection. On the other hand, the hospital did not receive treatment at the hospital's own house or that it did not receive treatment for the first time. On the other hand, Non-indicted 1 did not receive treatment at the hospital's hospital's own house during the above treatment period. On the other hand, Non-indicted 1 did not receive treatment from the hospital's hospital's hospital's hospital's hospital's first day, and did not receive treatment from the hospital's own house during the above treatment period.

㈒ 피고인 3

(병원 이름 생략) 원장인 피고인 1이 피고인 3에 대하여 작성한 진료기록부에는 ① 2000. 6. 3.～2000. 7. 10.까지 38일간, ② 2000. 8. 1.～2000. 9. 6.까지 37일간, ③ 2000. 10. 2.～2000. 10. 31.까지 30일간, ④ 2000. 11. 13.～2000. 12. 21.까지 39일간, ⑤ 2001. 6. 25.～2001. 7. 31.까지 37일간, ⑥ 2001. 8. 28.～2001. 10. 8.까지 41일간, ⑦ 2001. 11. 12.～2001. 12. 4.까지 23일간, ⑧ 2001. 12. 24.～2002. 1. 17.까지 25일간, ⑨ 2002. 7. 22.～2002. 8. 19.까지 29일간, ⑩ 2002. 9. 5.～2002. 10. 3.까지 29일간, ⑪2002. 11. 2.～2002. 11. 29.까지 28일간의, 각 입원기간 중 위 피고인은 만성 활동성 간염, 기관지염, 소화성궤양, 부정맥, 심근병증 등의 진단병명에 관하여 매일 타치온과 타가메트{또는 리카바, 진통해열제(SB), 삐콤, 헤로세친}를 섞은 포도당 5%인 500cc의 링겔주사액을 투여받고(간혹 1000cc의 링겔주사액을 투여받은 것으로 진료기록부에 기록되기도 하였다), 오전과 저녁에 근육주사{스테로이드인 덱사스(DEXAS), 비씨(BC), 멕페란, 스파몬, 소화제인 티로파와 썰피린, 겐타마이신, 트라마돌, 이뇨제인 라식스 등)를 맞으며, 알드린현탁액과 치료약을 3-4회 복용하고, 체온 및 혈압검사를 받았고, 그 외에 수 회에 걸쳐 혈관레이저치료와 초음파검사 등을 받은 것으로 기록되어 있다.

그런데 원심이 적법하게 조사하여 채택한 증거들에 의하면, 위 피고인은 아내인 피고인 5를 통하여 보험설계사들로부터 위 병원이 입원허가를 받기가 쉽고 가벼운 질환에 대하여도 장기간 입원할 수 있으며 입원기간 중 외출, 외박이 자유롭다는 소문을 듣고 위 병원으로 진료를 받으러 갔는데 피고인 1로부터 “간경화나 간암으로 진행될 수 있으니 빨리 입원하라. 입원치료를 해야 링겔주사를 맞을 수 있다.”는 등으로 입원을 권유받고서 위 병원에 위와 같이 입원하게 된 사실, 위 피고인은 위와 같이 진료기록부에 기재된 입원기간 중 정기적으로 오전에 병원에 가서 근육주사를 1대 맞고 1-2시간 동안 링겔주사액을 투여받은 후 다시 근육주사를 1대 맞는 등의 치료를 받았고, 어떤 날은 오후에 병원에 가서 위와 동일한 치료를 받았으며, 간혹 초음파검사 등을 받았는데, 혈관레이저치료는 한 번도 받지 아니하였으며(수사기록 제5358면), 위 입원기간 중 대부분 집에서 잠을 잔 사실{위 피고인 스스로도 입원기간의 30% 정도는 위 병원이 아닌 집에서 잠을 잤다고 진술하고 있으며(수사기록 제5935면), 한편 위 피고인은 대부분 병원에서 잠을 잤고, 외출을 하더라도 집으러 가서 쉬다가 저녁이나 자신의 아이들이 잠든 후인 새벽 2-5시경에 병원에 돌아와서 잠을 잤다고 주장하나, 1999. 11. 중순경부터 위 병원에서 간호조무사로 근무해 온 공소외 5와 2000. 1. 11.부터 위 병원에서 간호조무사로 근무해 온 공소외 6, 2000. 10.경부터 2001. 11.경까지 위 병원에서 간호조무사로 근무한 공소외 7은 수사기관에서 자신이 야근할 당시 위 피고인이 위 병원에서 자는 것을 한 번도 보지 못하였다고 진술하고 있고, 위 공소외 7은 야간근무가 끝나고 인수인계를 하는 오전 9시경에도 위 피고인이 병실에 있지 아니하였다고 진술하고 있으며, 위 피고인도 경찰에서 야간에는 아내인 피고인 5가 일을 하러 나가기 때문에 자신이 자폐아인 둘째 아들 공소외 8을 돌봐야한다고 진술한 점(수사기록 제5373면), 집에서 쉬다가 새벽 2-5시경에 병원에 돌아와서 잠을 자기도 하였다는 위 피고인의 주장은 납득하기 어려운 점에 비추어 볼 때, 위 피고인은 입원기간 중 대부분 위 병원이 아닌 집에서 잠을 잔 것으로 보인다.}, 위 병원 간호조무사인 공소외 7이 주간에 입원실에 근무할 당시 위 피고인은 거의 링겔주사를 맞지 않고 근육주사만을 맞아서 위 공소외 7로부터 ‘치료를 잘 받으라’는 주의를 받기도 한 사실, 한편 위 피고인은 1997. 9경부터 부천시 원미구 소사동에서 ‘ (상호 생략)’라는 상호로 씽크대 판매업을 해 오다 2002. 3.경 폐업하여 그 기간동안 월 70～130만원의 수익을 얻었고, 그 이후부터 2002. 11.경까지는 예전 고객들로부터 연락이 오면 씽크대를 위 피고인이 직접 사서 설치해 주는 일을 하여 월 50만원 정도의 수익을 얻었고, 아내인 피고인 5는 별다른 수입이 없었는데, 피고인 3은 위와 같이 (병원 이름 생략)에 입원한 기간 동안에도 1주일에 3-4회 정도 점포에 가서 일을 하거나 씽크대를 배달하기도 하였고, 자폐아(정신지체 3급)인 위 피고인의 둘째 아들 공소외 8이 차를 타고 나가면 자해행동이 없어져서 위 공소외 8을 차에 태우고 야외로 나가기도 한 사실, 위 피고인은 위 ④회차 2000. 11. 13.～2000. 12. 21.까지의 입원기간 중인 2000. 12. 7. 14:42경 경기 양평군 용문터널 앞 국도에서 자신 명의의 화물자동차를 운전하다 속도위반으로 적발되기도 하였고, 위 ③회차 2000. 10. 2.～2000. 10. 31.까지 입원기간 중인 2000. 10. 17. 위 병원으로부터 15일치 약의 처방전을 받아 약국에서 약을 구입하기도 한 사실(수사기록 제83면, 제6643면), 위 피고인은 위 병원에서의 입원기간 중 의사나 간호사로부터 허락을 받거나 외출증을 발급받지 아니하고 외출 또는 외박을 하였고, 위와 같은 외출ㆍ외박에 대하여 병원측으로부터 한 번도 제지당하지 아니한 사실, 위 병원측에서는 위 피고인이 받은 입원치료에 관하여 국민건강보험공단에게 의료수가를 청구하지 아니한 사실, 피고인 3은 1993. 6. 21.경부터 자신 명의로 건강보험에 가입하기 시작하여 1998.경까지 자신 및 아내인 상피고인 5 명의로 합계 6개의 건강보험에 가입하였는데, 그 중 위 피고인 명의로 1998.경 가입한 3개의 건강보험의 경우 위 피고인은 1997.경에 이미 자신이 만성간염을 앓고 있는 것을 알았으면서도 가입당시 보험가입청약서의 문진표에 지병이 없다고 기재하여 마치 위 피고인에게 아무런 지병이 없는 것처럼 보험회사를 기망한 사실, 위 피고인은 위 6개의 보험에 대하여 매달 보험료로 합계 약 28만원을 납입하여 왔고, 그 외에 2000.경과 2001.경 아들들 명의로 2개의 보험에 추가로 가입하여 매월 8개의 보험에 대하여 합계 약 34만원을 보험료로 납입하여 왔는데 위 피고인이 입원치료를 받은 것에 대하여 보험회사로부터 수령한 보험금 등으로 위 보험료를 납입하여 온 사실, 위에서 본 바와 같이 위 피고인이 가입한 보험의 입원특약에 따르면 피보험자가 8대 성인병으로 입원하였을 경우 입원급여금은 최장 120일간의 입원기간에 대하여서만 지급받을 수 있고, 그 후 6개월이 경과하면 다시 최장 120일간의 입원기간에 대하여 입원급여금을 지급받을 수 있으므로, 위 피고인은 위 병원에서의 입원일수의 합계가 120일을 초과하면 더 이상 입원하지 아니하였다가 6개월이 경과하면 다시 위 병원에 입원하곤 하였으며, 위 피고인은 통원치료를 받았을 경우에는 입원급여금과 요양급여금 등의 보험금을 지급받지 못하므로 가능한 입원치료를 받고자 한 사실, 위 피고인이 (병원 이름 생략)에서 입원확인서를 발급받아 오면 위 피고인의 아내인 피고인 5가 이를 이용하여 보험회사에 보험금을 청구하는 방법으로 위 피고인은 1997. 4. 10.경부터 2002. 12. 4.경까지 약 62회에 걸쳐 보험회사들로부터 합계 약 7,000만원의 보험금을 수령한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

㈓ 피고인 4

Defendant 4 remains only part of the medical record for the period of hospitalization from April 26, 2002 to June 1, 2002. The written confirmation of hospitalization issued by the above Defendant (name omitted) shall be written for 34 days from the name of the disease, such as fire fighting path between the above Defendant, streng, acute oreitis, and streak infection, etc. until November 14 through 16, 1998; 2. 64 days from May 17 to 19, 199; 3. 8 days from 0. 8 days from 0. 8 days until 20. 199; 4. 8 days from 0. 4. 8 days from 199 to 20. 4. 199; 4. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 20. 1. 1. 2. 3. 5. 2. 1. 1. 1. . 2. . 3. . 3. . . . 8. 3

However, according to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, Defendant 4 was hospitalized several times other than the above period of hospitalization (name omitted), and around July 5, 1998, Defendant 1 received insurance benefits from the insurance company for Hegel injection. Once he was hospitalized, Defendant 4 recommended hospital treatment with the content that “Igel injection will take place. Igel’s house after being treated, Igel’s house” and continued hospital treatment with the content that “Igel’s house will go to go to the hospital.” The above Defendant was 9:30 a.m. during the period of hospitalization stated in the above certificate of hospitalization at around 9:30 p.m., 1 p. 6 p.m., 3 p. 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., 200 p. 9 p.m., 60 p.m., 9:0 p., 10 p.m., 60 p.m., 9.m., 200 p., 9.m.

㈔ 피고인 6

The written confirmation of hospitalization issued by the defendant 6 (name of hospital omitted) states that the above defendant was hospitalized in the above hospital for 36 days from December 9, 199 to January 13, 200, ② the above defendant was hospitalized in the above hospital for 33 days from August 8, 200 to September 9, 200. The above defendant still remains in the medical record for the period of hospitalization. The above defendant's medical record for the above defendant was included in the medical record for the period of hospitalization until August 8, 200 to September 9, 200. The above defendant mixed the diagnosis name of the disease, such as typhalop, typhalopic, and so on with 10copic 10copher's 5% popic rheic rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric rhetor and rup.

However, according to the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, Defendant 6 had taken three insurance policies in his name from around 195 to around 200, and the above defendant purchased three insurance policies in his name from around 1998 when he had been aware of the fact that he had already received the above infection at around 997 when he had entered the subscription form for the insurance policy, and returned to the hospital at around 6:0.0.0.00, while he had been staying in the above hospital, he had left the hospital without any continuous observation of medical personnel such as the doctor or nurse, etc., and had left the hospital. The above defendant got three insurance policies in his name from around 1995 to around 200.0. However, the above defendant did not know that he had been suffering from the above infection at the time of his subscription form for the insurance policy, but did not know that he had received the above disease from the above insurance company.

(3) Determination of misunderstanding of facts

As seen earlier, Defendant 2 appeared to have been hospitalized in the above hospital (name of the hospital) for the first time, and had Nonindicted Party 1 receive an average of 3-4 hours of treatment with respect to the above hospital for the first time, and did not appear to have been infected by the hospital during the hospitalization period. In light of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 did not receive treatment at the hospital for the first time, the treatment period of the above hospital for the first time, and that Nonindicted Party 1 did not receive treatment for the first time after being hospitalized in the hospital for the first time. In addition, in the case of the above hospital for the first time, Defendant 2 did not receive treatment for the first time after being hospitalized in the hospital for the first time, and that the first time after being hospitalized in the hospital for the first time, he did not receive treatment for the second time after being hospitalized in the hospital for the second time, and that the second day did not receive treatment for the second time during which he did not receive treatment for the second time.

In addition, in light of the fact that Defendant 2 repeatedly resided in the hospital without receiving any other medical treatment except for those who received an average two times of physical treatment a day from December 21, 2001 to March 31, 2001, at the time of entrance from March 31, 2001, Defendant 2 received the above (the name omitted of the original) hospital and returned to the hospital, the treatment that the above Defendant received from the above (the name omitted of the original hospital) clinic shall be deemed to fall under the form of hospital treatment, and the actual medical treatment is deemed to fall under the category of hospital treatment.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 asked Defendant 2 about whether to purchase insurance at the time of hospitalization, and Defendant 4 told Defendant 4 that “she may receive insurance benefits to receive hospitalized treatment in the case of Hegel injection,” and that the patient was issued a certificate of hospitalization at the above hospital and submitted it to the insurance company with such certificate, the patient was about 4-5 days if he submitted it to the above hospital, and Defendant 1, etc., the head of the above hospital, as the head of the above hospital, was difficult for the insurance company’s employees to investigate, Defendant 1 was aware that the certificate of hospitalization issued by him was used for the patient’s claims for insurance proceeds

Therefore, in light of the above circumstances, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, Defendant 2 conspireds with either alone or with Nonindicted Party 1, by deceiving the insurance company as if he had received hospitalized treatment at (name omitted) Council members, and Defendant 3 and 5 also conspired with Defendant 3 and acquired the insurance proceeds by deceiving the insurance company as if he had received hospitalized treatment at (name omitted) Council members, and also Defendant 3 and 5 knew the insurance company as if he had received the hospitalized treatment at (name omitted). Also, Defendant 4 and 3 can be sufficiently recognized that each of them knew the insurance company as if he had received the hospitalized treatment at (name omitted) and received the insurance proceeds by deceiving him as if he had received the hospitalized treatment at the (name omitted). In the case of Defendant 1, Defendant 4 and 6, by deceiving the National Health Insurance Corporation as if he had received the hospitalized treatment at the (name omitted) and by issuing a false written confirmation of hospitalization, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant 2,3,5,4,6 and Nonindicted Party 1 were

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion on unfair sentencing (defendant 1 and 2)

Defendant 1 did not have any other criminal history except for one time of fine, and Defendant 2 is a first offender. However, Defendant 1 recommended Defendant 2 and 4 to be hospitalized only in the form of the form, and to be provided with pain treatment. Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 6 issued a false certificate of hospitalization to the above Defendants, thereby inducing the above Defendants to easily receive insurance money, and not only caused the above Defendants to acquire the insurance money by fraud, but also, in addition to the instant case, it was possible to issue a false certificate of hospitalization to the patients through several times to ensure that (the name of hospital omitted) is easy to obtain hospitalization, and to be hospitalized for a long time, and there is poor quality of the crime, such as going against the law of appearance and gambling during the hospitalization period, and the amount of insurance money obtained through deception is about 6,700,000 won, and ultimately, Defendant 2’s act of deception and/or 400,000,000 won by taking account of the following circumstances, and there is no reason to punish the above Defendants by deception and its own family members.

C. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant 5)

According to the records of this case, upon the issuance of a summary order that imposes a fine of one million won on Defendant 5 as Seoul District Court Decision 2003 High Court Decision 2003 High Court Decision 19775, the above defendant filed a formal trial against this defendant. The court below acknowledged the facts that the above defendant made a fine of two million won exceeding the punishment of the above summary order. Since the court below erred in the violation of Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act by sentencing more severe punishment than the punishment of the above defendant, the part of the judgment of the court below against the above defendant cannot be maintained in this regard.

D. Ex officio determination (as to the defendant 3 and 4)

As to the part of the judgment of the court below regarding defendant 3 and 4, each arrest warrant (the trial records No. 320, 330 pages), each application for detention warrant (the investigation records No. 4983, 493 pages), each detention warrant (the trial records No. 449, 459, 578 pages), and each detention warrant (the trial records No. 449, 578 pages), the defendant 3 and 4 were arrested on May 14, 200 and were released on the 15th day of the same month, and the above defendants were arrested on the 4th day of the same month by arrest warrant on the 20th day of the same month and were detained on the 4th day of the same month, and the defendant 3 was released on bail on the 4th day of the same month, and the defendant 4th day of the same year from 20 to 4th day of the same year, and the court below's total detention days before the sentencing No. 140 to 15th day of the same year.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 3, 4, and 5 is a ground for ex officio reversal, and the judgment below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal against Defendant 1, 2, and 6 shall be dismissed in entirety

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment or Imprisonment)

Defendant 3 and 5: Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant 4 and 5: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of 1 days of detention

Defendant 3 and 4: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 3: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 4 and 5: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)