A. In the absence of the fact that the Defendant had received normal hospitalization at H Hospital, and had taken out from time to time during the period of hospitalization without receiving normal treatment, deceiving the victims as if the cause for the payment of insurance proceeds occurred, and had the victims taken the charge of receiving the insurance proceeds. The lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact, and convicted the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts) 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 ability to the disease or are administered, the management of the patient’s outpatients and foods needs to be continuously conducted, and thus, the patient’s pains are in a situation where the patient’s condition is unable to cope with the patient’s condition or where the patient’s risk of infection exists, etc., and the patient suffers from treatment while staying in the hospital. In accordance with all the provisions of “detaileds on the criteria and method for applying medical care benefits” as publicly notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the patient’s stay in the hospital for more than six hours and undergo treatment under the observation and management of the medical personnel. However, the determination of whether the patient was hospitalized cannot be made on the basis of the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment procedure, the patient’s actions, etc., and the patient’s treatment need not be based on comprehensive consideration of the patient’s symptoms, treatment procedure, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do465, May 28).