The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-findings, unreasonable sentencings) misunderstanding the fact that a defendant requires physical treatment after undergoing a high-level care operation in 2014, and received physical treatment by being hospitalized in an E hospital twice on the recommendation of his/her surroundings, and there was no fact that he/she was out of the hospital while receiving hospitalized treatment.

As such, the defendant had received hospitalized treatment normally, there is no fact of deceiving victims.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 700,000) is too unreasonable.

In the case of hospitalization on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, where continuous observation by a medical staff is required in relation to the side effects or incidental effects of the patient's low resistance ability or the drugs administered by him/her, where the management of nutritional conditions and drinking foods is necessary, and where the patient's pains are in need of continuous management, and where the patient's pains rather inconvenience in treatment, the patient is under treatment while staying in the hospital, such as where the patient's condition is unable to cope with the pain or where the risk of infection exists.

Whether hospitalization is necessary shall be determined by comprehensively considering the symptoms of the patient, the details and circumstances of the diagnosis and treatment, the patient's behavior, etc.

In addition, even if there are grounds for payment of insurance proceeds, in cases where excessive insurance proceeds are paid through long hospitalization with the intention to acquire a large amount of insurance proceeds than the insurance proceeds actually received through the realization, a crime of fraud is established against the total insurance proceeds received, barring special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2134, May 11, 2007). The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented by the lower court, the lower court is significantly a case where the Defendant was hospitalized in another hospital normally.