B All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Defendant A and C of the applicant for compensation respectively.

A. Defendant B (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and Sentencing) was actually hospitalized according to the doctor’s diagnosis, and was hospitalized for a long time more than the necessary time, and subsequently the victim insurance company was deceiving the insurance money, which was found guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

Even if guilty, the sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (see, e.g., one year and four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of protection observation, Defendant B’s observation, see, e.g., the above paragraph (a), one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and surveillance of protection) are too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant B and the Prosecutor’s assertion of sentencing, the total amount obtained by deception, and the fact that there is no agreement with the victims is disadvantageous to the Defendants, but there was a need for hospitalized treatment to some extent to the Defendants.

In addition, the defendants benefiting from the total amount of fraud.

It is difficult to see that Defendant A was the first offender, Defendant B and C did not have the same kind of punishment or criminal record, Defendants terminated part of the above insurance products, Defendants did not change the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, and environment.