사기
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the doctors who directly treated the Defendants seems to have been difficult to make a strict and accurate judgment as to whether or not they are released on the Defendants' subjective appeal for symptoms.
It is difficult to accept these horses as they are.
On the other hand, medical specialists who reviewed medical records, etc. present their opinions that they were released after they received hospitalized treatment for a reasonable period of time and could lead a daily life.
In addition, considering the fact that the Defendants did not receive medical treatment in a large hospital located in Seoul, and transferred a small and medium-sized hospital located in Seoul, extended the duration of hospitalization, and there is no room for the Defendants to receive hospitalized treatment for more than 120 days after the insurance proceeds are guaranteed under the insurance terms and conditions, the facts charged should be deemed as proved by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.
2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court on the grounds that the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged, the lower court’s determination that the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to have determined that the Defendants acquired the insurance money by deceiving the Defendants as if they were in need of hospital treatment even after the period of hospitalization stated in the facts charged expired
The facts charged against Defendant A are based on the fact that, from July 31, 2007 to April 12, 2012, around 4 years and 8 months in the case of Defendant B, and around 3 years and 6 months from April 18, 2008 to October 26, 201, the hospitalized treatment was conducted for at least the appropriate number of days of hospitalization calculated by the Health Review and Assessment Service during the period of three years and 6 months in the case of Defendant A.
Accordingly, the amount of deception and fraud of the Defendants was specified.
However, "The response to the examination of medical integrity by the head of the Health Review and Assessment Service", which is a direct evidence on this issue, has not been admissible as evidence since it is not admissible as evidence.
The public prosecutor shall examine the dismissal decision of the court below.