The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the facts charged in the instant case’s judgment are as indicated in the separate facts charged. As to this, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have deceiving the important contents of the insurance contract with the intent to acquire insurance money at the time of entering

2. The summary of the grounds of appeal - the defendant's husband E was aware of the fact that the defendant's husband E had undergone an inspection related to the non-hodin species on June 20, 2008, which was not more than five years from June 2008, which was the insurance contract date of this case, and the defendant's husband E was aware of the fact that he had undergone an inspection related to the non-hodin species, which was not more than five years from June 29, 2003, which was the date of the insurance contract of this case, stated "no" as "no"; the defendant prepared a "customer interview report" and stated as "no disease"; the defendant had long worked as an insurance solicitor; therefore, the defendant knew that the insurance contract was not concluded when he notifies the insurance company of the past illness of E; and the judgment below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case as well as the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The deception, as a requirement for fraud, refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to comply with each other in property transactional relationships, and thus, are not necessarily required to be falsely labeled as a material part of a juristic act, but to the facts that form the basis for judgment in order to enable an actor to perform an act of disposal of property that he/she wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.