A. In fact, the Defendant did not deceiving an insurance company as if he had been hospitalized in normal terms even though it was not necessary to receive the insurance money after having been hospitalized after having been hospitalized with severe pains to the extent that the hospitalized treatment is needed.

In addition, the actual medical expenses should be deducted from the amount of fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding assertion 1) 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, or are administered by, a patient’s disease, where the management of nutritional conditions and food is needed, and it is necessary to continuously administer medication and food, and thus, the patient’s pains rather inconvenience in treatment is caused, or where the patient’s condition is in a state of being unable to cope with the patient’s disease or there is a risk of infection, etc., the patient is receiving treatment while staying in the hospital. Thus, the determination of whether the patient is hospitalized based on the patient’s medical personnel’s observation and management cannot be made by comprehensively taking into account all the following factors: (a) the patient’s symptoms, treatment process, and exercise of rights pertaining to the patient’s exercise of rights as a means of deception, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6475, Jan. 12, 2006).