Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. The Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

A. In fact, the Defendants did not receive insurance money falsely, on the grounds that the Defendants were over-concentration of symptoms to the extent that they actually need hospital treatment and received hospital treatment accordingly.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a fine of one million won each) is too unreasonable.

2. The necessity of hospitalized treatment and the basic legal principles on the gender of fraud refer to the cases where a continuous observation by a medical staff is necessary in relation to side effects or incidental effects of drugs, which show a very low resistance ability to resist the disease of the patient, and where the management of food and drinks is needed, it is necessary to continuously administer medication, treatment, etc., and thus, the patient’s pains rather inconvenience in treating the patient, or where the patient’s situation is in a situation where the patient’s condition is unable to cope with the patient’s disease, or where there is a risk of infection, etc., the patient suffers from treating the patient while staying in the hospital. As such, according to all the provisions such as “detailed details on the criteria and method for the application of the medical care benefits” publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the patient’s stay in the hospital for six or more hours, and under the observation and management of the medical staff, the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of the patient, the patient’s behavior, etc., as well as the cases where the treatment is not the substance of the hospital treatment.

The act of claiming insurance money by alleging that the insurance company met the hospitalization period stipulated in the insurance contract without notifying the case of a long-term hospitalization which is more necessary by making it possible to mislead the insurance company, constitutes a deception in fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6557, Jan. 12, 2006). 3. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. The lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts.