[Defendant and defense counsel asserted that there was an error of “unfair sentencing” in the judgment of the court below at the first instance trial date, but the above assertion cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal due to a new assertion that was made after the appeal was not timely filed.

Even if ex officio, the sentence of the court below is too excessive and thus is not unreasonable)

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine refers to a patient’s treatment under the observation and management of a medical doctor while staying in the hospital for more than 6 hours pursuant to the following provisions: (a) where continuous observation of a medical doctor is required with respect to side effects or incidental effects of drugs which have low resistance to, or are administered by, the patient’s disease; (b) where the administration and treatment of drugs are necessary to continuously take place; (c) where the patient’s pains are in a situation where the patient’s condition is unable to cope with, or where the patient’s risk of infection exists; and (d) where the patient stays in the hospital and takes treatment; and (e) where the patient is under a condition where the patient’s condition is unable to cope with, or where the patient’s risk of infection exists, the patient’s treatment should be determined by taking into account the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment; and (e) details and circumstances of, the patient’s treatment; and (e) the patient’s actions.

In addition, even if there is any reason to receive one insurance money, if excessive insurance money is paid through long-term hospitalization, etc. with the intention to acquire a large amount of insurance money than the insurance money that can be actually paid due to the weather.