2. According to the records, the defendant himself stated in the court below that the first three-day period of hospitalization of the second hospitalization of the case was not a hospital and the doctor did not receive treatment. Despite the absence of the doctor at the hospital, continuing hospitalization of the first three-day patient despite the absence of the doctor at the hospital seems not to have been hospitalized for the first purpose of medical treatment (if the patient was hospitalized for the purpose of medical treatment, it would have to have been confirmed that the doctor was discharged from the hospital, and then that the patient was hospitalized for the purpose of medical treatment). (2) The defendant stated in the court of the court that the first hospitalization of the case at the time of the first hospitalization of the court below was all the contents of the hospital treatment, and that the above treatment was no need for hospitalization and it would have been possible for the victim to receive medical treatment. ③ According to the statement of the Dental doctor at the time of the first hospitalization of the case, considering the above fact that the medical doctor at the time of the first hospitalization of the court below, the defendant did not have any reason to acknowledge the credibility of the medical examination of the hospital as a false patient's testimony.