2. The facts of each of the instant crimes are that the Defendant could achieve the purpose of the instant medical treatment from the beginning, and thus, inasmuch as surgery and hospital treatment are not required, or hospitalization is required even if hospitalization is required, the Defendant was hospitalized more than the appropriate hospitalization period, and the Defendant received 93,638,434 won from each insurance company that is the victims through 13 times through 13 times. The Defendant reflects the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and that there was an agreement with the victim East Life Insurance Co., Ltd. in the lower judgment, etc.

However, in full view of the fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is considerable, that in the case of insurance fraud, the burden of insurance fraud is not good, that there is no change in circumstances that differs from the original judgment in this court, and that there is no change in circumstances that make the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Committee (the scope of recommending punishment between June and June) and other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and character, environment, circumstances, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.