From May 1, 2009 to May 28, 2009, the Defendant hospitalized D Hospital on the ground of Gap's sampling functional dynasty, etc., and on June 2, 2009, filed a claim for insurance money with the employee in charge of victim B, who submitted a certificate of deposit and discharge for 28 days, etc.

However, since the symptoms of the defendant at the time have been repeated by preservation and prescription, the substance of treatment is merely the outpatient treatment and there was no need for long-term hospitalization for 28 days.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the employees in charge of the victim, received 840,000 won from the victim to the national bank account under the name of the Defendant as the date of hospitalization, and from May 13, 2015, through which unnecessary long-term hospitalization was repeated over 18 times as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table of crimes, and did not undergo substantive hospitalized treatment, such as from time to time out and out of the hospital during the hospitalization period, and seeing personal affairs from time to time during the hospitalization period, acquired the total sum of 346,834,918 won of the membership fee as the date of hospitalization.

2. The facts charged are based on the premise that the Defendant was hospitalized for a long time even though it is sufficiently possible to receive hospital treatment.

In principle, the determination of hospitalization, duration, etc. shall be made.

In a situation where there is no evidence to see that the defendant had influenced the decision of the intention to decide whether to admit the defendant, it is difficult to reject the doctor E legal statement that the defendant considered the need to be hospitalized.

(C) The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged. The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged.

3. Conclusion.