From June 27, 2001 to October 29, 2013, the Defendant subscribed to 13 guaranteed insurance policies, such as the Victim Solar Life Insurance Co., Ltd., such as non-dividend dividend bed, and attempted to acquire insurance money by deceiving an insurance company as if it requires long-term hospitalized treatment, even though it is a minor injury or disease, and it does not require long-term hospital treatment.

The Defendant: (a) was hospitalized at the Federation of Saemaul Cooperatives for 15 days in Gyeong-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, from January 4, 2010 to January 18, 2010; (b) the Defendant was hospitalized in Gyeong-si, Gyeong-si, Mapo-si, 15 days despite the Defendant’s disease was sufficient to be hospitalized for seven days; and (c) received KRW 360,000 as insurance money on February 1, 2010.

In addition, from around that time to June 7, 2016, the Defendant was hospitalized in a medical institution for a total of 24 times, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table, and acquired KRW 123,575,095 from the victims to June 10, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Each statement of E, F, G, H, I, and J;

1. Information on contractual matters, current status of hospitalization hospitals, statement of payment details, statement of demand for hospitalization, Samsung Card, etc., results of reviewing whether hospitalization treatment is appropriate, copies of an application for an insurance contract, details of entry, discharge and re-hospitalization, comprehensive review opinions, opinions on comprehensive review by number of vehicles, records of outing, analysis, medical records related to hospitalization, medical records other than the details of hospitalization, claim for insurance proceeds, etc. of an insurance company;

1. Report on investigation (execution of a warrant of search and inspection);

1. Application of each relevant statute;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (elective of imprisonment);

1. That the defendant did not have an intention to deceive the insurance company as to the defendant's assertion in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act to increase concurrent crimes

c) argument.