2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Insurance fraud, such as the instant crime, is likely to interfere with the operation and management of the insurance system and cause moral hazard, resulting in enormous social costs. Therefore, it is highly necessary to punish the instant crime. The sum of the amounts obtained by the Defendants that repeatedly committed the instant crime over a long-term period is KRW 130 million in the case of Defendant A, and KRW 48 million in the case of Defendant B.

However, in the meantime, even if the Defendants were excessively hospitalized, it is deemed that there was a need for hospital treatment for some diseases to a certain extent, and the Defendants were required to receive insurance proceeds for the first time rather than claiming for insurance proceeds from planned false diseases, but the Defendants continued to receive insurance proceeds during that process, it appears that the victimized insurance company committed the instant crime by unfairly failing to thoroughly examine the insured’s self-sufficiency, necessity, and double subscription, etc., and there are circumstances that can be taken into account in part of the Defendants’ criminal conduct, such as hospital and promotion of attracting patients, without carefully determining the necessity of hospitalization, and by considering the need for hospitalization, Defendant A paid or deposited approximately KRW 58.9 million to the victimized insurance company.