The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant violated the duty of disclosure from June 16, 200 to September 17, 2002, the medical history of the Defendant’s violation of the duty of disclosure was non-large-scale heart disease and high blood pressure disease accompanied by the heart disease diagnosed within D around November 14, 2002, around the 16th of the same month, and around the 30th of the same month, the Defendant did not hear detailed explanations from his doctors or receive long-term treatment or medication due to the above disease, and thus, the Defendant did not memory the above disease at the time of entering into the insurance contract, and the Defendant did not know that he did not have any influence on the insurance premiums at the time of entering into the insurance contract, and did not know that he had to know that he had made efforts to maintain the above insurance contract by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the insurance contracts for the victim’s insurance premiums at the time of entering into the insurance contract on February 10, 2004.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant has no record of the crime of unfair sentencing, and the crime of this case is committed on the basis of the fact that the defendant received insurance money while treating open body over five years, and there are many diseases that are not related to the heart disease in the medical treatment of the defendant, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The case.