The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal doctrine, was treated with legitimate hospitalized treatment according to a doctor’s medical judgment, and thus, it is not a deception by deceiving insurance companies.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. 1) In a case where continuous observation by a medical personnel is necessary in relation to side effects or incidental effects of the patient’s disease which have low resistance ability or are administered, the relevant legal principles refer to the patient’s treatment under the observation and management of a medical personnel when he/she stays in the hospital for at least 6 hours pursuant to all the provisions including “detaileds on the criteria and methods for the application of the Medical Care Benefits”, which are published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, where the patient’s condition of stay in the hospital, diagnosis and treatment of the patient, in a case where continuous management of the patient’s nutritional conditions and food in-take needs to be conducted, and where the patient’s treatment is in a situation where the patient’s condition is unable to cope with the patient’s disease, or where the patient’s risk of infection exists, etc.

The act of claiming insurance money by asserting that the insurance company satisfies the hospitalization period stipulated in the insurance terms and conditions without notifying the case of a long-term hospitalization more than necessary by making it possible to mislead the insurance company, constitutes deception in fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2941, Jun. 15, 2007, etc.).