The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) despite the absence of clear occupation or property, the Defendant subscribed to 21 insurance products by 11 insurance companies and paid approximately KRW 1690,000 as monthly insurance premium; (b) the Defendant continuously repeated entry and discharge for a period of two years, and received insurance money equivalent to KRW 140,000 from insurance companies over 147 times; (c) most of the aforementioned period of hospitalization was provided with simple treatment, such as injection and medication, without permission; (d) most of the aforementioned period of hospitalization was provided with simple treatment, such as injection and medication; and (e) was conducted outside and outing without permission; and (e) was conducted with unfair long-term hospitalization, the hospitalized treatment received by the Defendant cannot be accepted as a means of exercising social norms; and thus, (e) the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court: (a) regarding (i) whether the Defendant was hiding the history of the admission of traffic accidents at the time of the purchase of the insurance products of the future Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Isk Life Insurance”) by the Defendant, only C’s statement, an insurance solicitor of the future Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Isk Life Insurance”); and (b) C accurately memorys and

Inasmuch as it appears that the defendant made a statement when soliciting insurance, in light of his experience that confirmed the record of hospitalization to ordinary subscribers, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant did not notify the part of the record of hospitalization. ② Even if the defendant concealed the record of hospitalization, in light of the practice of the insurance business, the defendant refused to purchase insurance on the ground that he was aware of the non-traffic accident and the fact of hospitalization for 4 days in light of the practice of the insurance business.