A. The Defendant, as a patient suffering from defoliants, was suffering from low-blood shocks due to urology and complication, and had hye disks and hye disc.

For this reason, the period of treatment is long due to the occurrence of injury frequently and more damage than normal, and there is no fact that the hospital was hospitalized by exaggeration of damage even though it is not required to be hospitalized.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. There is a reason to receive insurance proceeds in relation to a mistake of fact.

Even if this is done, if excessive insurance money is paid through long-term hospitalization, etc. with intent to acquire a large amount of insurance money than the actual insurance money, a crime of fraud is established against the whole insurance money received.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4665 Decided May 28, 2009, etc.). Reviewing the record, it is reasonable that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing. In full view of the following: (a) there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing; (b) the act of insurance fraud, such as this case, harms a large number of good insurance policyholders by impairing the foundation of the insurance system, excluding reasonable diversification of risks; and (c) weak insurance finance; and (d) the number of crimes and the period of crimes

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.