A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely a treatment for hospitalization for a proper period of time because the defendant is not a good health, and there was no deception of the victim insurance company and there was no intention to commit fraud of insurance money.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In a case where continuous observation by a medical personnel is necessary with respect to side effects or incidental effects of the patient's disease which are very low resistance or that of the patient's disease, where the management of the patient's pain and drinking foods is needed, the management of the patient's pain and drinking foods needs to be continuously conducted, and so, the patient's pain treatment is in a situation where the patient's condition is unable to cope with the patient's condition or where the patient's risk of infection exists, etc., and the patient is staying in the hospital and receiving treatment. The patient's staying in the hospital for more than six hours under the observation and management of the medical personnel in accordance with the "Detailed Rules on the Standards and Method of Medical Care Benefits" as notified by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, such as the procedure for staying in the hospital, the patient's symptoms, diagnosis and treatment, the patient's behavior, etc., and thus, the act of claiming a long-term hospitalization without notifying the insurance company of the necessity of hospitalization, as well as the case where the patient's intention is not required.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6557 delivered on January 12, 2006). B.

The court below's specific judgment.