The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was known to the Defendant on May 7, 2014, May 9, 201, and October 3 of the same month that he/she received treatment for a single set of items per day, so it is difficult to recognize the intention of defraudation, even though it is difficult to recognize the intention of defraudation, the lower court recognized the intention of defraudation and recognized the crime of fraud, so there is an error of misunderstanding

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor: “The Defendant subscribed to the insurance product for the lost losses of the victim Samsung Bio-Co., Ltd., which received insurance money for the frequency of the dental surgery; on May 7, 2014, and on May 9, 2014, at the same time, he/she completed a dental surgery for three dental staff members on the second floor of Sungwon-si D Officetel, Sungwon-si, Sungwonwon-si, and requested a doctor F to prepare and issue necessary documents for the claim of insurance money by dividing the date of the surgery into the date of the surgery.

Around May 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a copy of a medical record stating false details, and a medical confirmation document; (b) around May 23, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim for insurance proceeds with the victim company on May 23, 2014; and (c) around June 12, 2014, the Defendant did not have undergone a dental surgery on around around 10, 2014; (c) received a copy of the medical record stating that “the Defendant had undergone a plastic surgery, including a dental surgery,” and received a false medical record stating that “A dental surgery was performed on May 7, 2014; and (d) received a medical record and a medical confirmation document with the said documents attached to the victim company on June 12, 2014.

5. 10.10. The insurance money of 1.5 million won for self-harm was received and acquired by fraud.

"Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment" was filed, and since the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court, the part of the judgment below against the defendant cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

3. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the record, the following circumstances are recognized:

(1)