[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that even if a patient took a fixed type of receiving treatment after undergoing a procedure for hospitalization and stayed in a hospital for not less than 6 hours, the actual substance of treatment constitutes hospital treatment not for hospital treatment but for hospital treatment in light of the time of actual treatment and the contents and purpose of treatment

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that a crime of aiding and abetting fraud is established in a case where the defendant, who is a doctor, knew that the patient who does not need to receive hospital treatment, wants to receive hospital treatment for the purpose of receiving the insurance money and received hospital treatment in form, and issued a written confirmation of hospital admission

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that even if a patient took a fixed type of receiving treatment after undergoing a procedure for hospitalization and stayed in a hospital for more than six hours, the actual substance of treatment constitutes hospital treatment not for hospital treatment but for hospital treatment, considering the time when the patient actually received treatment and the content and purpose of treatment

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that a crime of aiding and abetting fraud is established in a case where the defendant, who is a medical doctor, knew of the fact that a patient, who does not need to receive hospital treatment, wants to receive hospital treatment for the purpose of receiving the insurance money, and received hospital treatment in form, and issued a written confirmation

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the lower court: (a) concluded that the Defendants were unable to take care of the above-mentioned hospital for 2 hours in the case of Defendant 2, and that the Defendants did not take care of the above-mentioned hospital for 1-2 hours; (b) did not take care of the patient; (c) did not take care of the patient at the hospital for 3-4 hours during the hospitalization period; (d) did not take care of the patient at the hospital; and (e) did not take care of the patient; (e) did not take care of the patient; (e) did not take care of the patient; and (e) did not take care of the patient at the hospital for 3 hours during the hospitalization period; and (e) did not take care of the patient; and (e) did not take care of the patient at the hospital for 5 hours after taking care of the patient; and (e) did not take care of the patient at the hospital for 4 hours after taking care of the patient at the hospital’s own time; and (g) did not take care of the patient at the hospital for 5 hours.

2. As to Defendant 1’s appeal

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 patient’s pains need to be continuously controlled, and thus, the patient’s pains are in a situation where the patient’s condition is unable to cope with pains 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 regulations of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, such as “detailed details on the criteria and method for applying medical care benefits,” a public notice of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the patient’s sojourn in the hospital for at least six hours, and the patient’s treatment cannot be determined based solely on the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment procedures, and the patient’s actions, etc. should be determined by comprehensively considering the symptoms, the patient’s diagnosis and treatment procedures, and the patient’s actions.

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, even if the patient took the form of receiving treatment by being assigned a fixed sick room after undergoing the procedure for hospitalization and stayed in the hospital for not less than six hours, the actual time of treatment is merely part, and the patient remains in the hospital merely without being observed or supervised by the medical staff for the remaining hours, and when the contents and purpose of the treatment can be sufficiently achieved due to the treatment, it shall be deemed that the treatment constitutes the treatment rather than the treatment for hospital treatment, and the substance of the treatment for the defendant 2, 3, 5, co-defendant 2, and non-indicted 2, is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of hospitalization.

Meanwhile, the facts charged as to Defendant 1’s fraudulent aiding and abetting the Defendant 1 do not require continuous management and observation of medical professionals in the case of hospitalized treatment while entering into the health insurance contract, and thus, Defendant 2, 3, 5, Co-defendant 2, who subscribed to a special agreement that provides a large amount of insurance proceeds, and thus, the purpose of the medical professionals’ continuous management and observation can be achieved. However, even in the case of Co-defendant 2, the purpose of the medical care can be sufficiently achieved only through hospital treatment by permitting hospitalization and issuing a certificate of hospitalization and facilitating the receipt of insurance proceeds from the insurance company. Thus, Defendant 1 cannot be said to have been issued a false certificate of hospitalization, on the ground that Defendant 2, 3, 5, Co-defendant 2, and Nonindicted 2 performed part of the medical care provided only to the hospitalized patients.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. The court below found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged against Defendant 1 on the ground that Defendant 1 asked co-defendant 2, 4, 3, 5, and co-defendant 2 of the court below at the time of entrance into the court below, and Defendant 3 provided that "it may receive insurance benefits to receive hospitalized treatment in the case of a bowling residence," and the patient issued a certificate of hospitalization at the (name omitted) and submitted it to the insurance company, 4-5 days after the patient submitted it to the insurance company, and Defendant 1, etc., who is the head of the hospital to investigate the insurance company, was difficult. Thus, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1 knew that the certificate of hospitalization he issued by himself was used for the insurance company's claim against the insurance company. Thus, the court below's decision that found Defendant 2, 4, 3, and 5, Co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance in collusion with the head of the office office, and it can be easily recognized that Defendant 1 assisted the receipt of insurance money by fraud.

C. In addition, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance that found Defendant 1 guilty of fraud among the facts charged against the defendant 1, on the ground that it is reasonable to view that the crime of fraud is established as long as the defendant 3 and 5 received medical care benefit costs for hospital treatment by sending it to the National Health Insurance Corporation, after compiling the adopted evidence and finding facts as stated in the judgment, although the defendant 3 and 5 merely received medical care costs throughout the hospital department (name omitted) and Defendant 1 received medical care costs as if the plaintiff 1 received hospital treatment. In light of the records, it is proper to take such measures of the court below, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)