A. Determination of a mistake of fact and the period of hospitalization of a defendant is a doctor, and the defendant did not have any influence on the decision and was hospitalized according to the decision of the doctor, and there was no intention to obtain insurance money.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two million won by fine) is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a case where continuous observation by a medical personnel is required with respect to side effects or incidental effects of drugs, which have low resistance power to, or are administered by, a patient’s disease, the relevant legal doctrine refers to the patient’s treatment under the observation and management of a medical personnel while staying in a hospital for more than 6 hours pursuant to the following provisions: (a) where the patient’s pain and treatment need to be continuously conducted; (b) where the patient’s pain and treatment are in a situation where the patient’s condition is unable to cope with, or where the patient’s risk of infection exists; and (c) where the patient stays in the hospital and receives treatment; (d) whether the patient is hospitalized based only on the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment procedures; and (e) the patient’s behavior should be determined by taking into account the patient’s symptoms, the patient’s treatment details and procedures; and (e) the patient’s actions.

In addition, in the case of exercise of rights by means of deception, if such deception is to the extent that it is not acceptable as a means of exercise of rights by social norms, the exercise of rights constitutes fraud, and there is a reason to receive insurance money.

Even if it is possible to realize this, the insurance money shall be obtained by fraud more than the insurance money actually paid.