The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Around November 26, 2008, the Defendant subscribed to an insurance product called “non-negotiable Aflusing Aflusty Insurance” of the Victim Hansung non-life insurance (owner).

From February 18, 2009 to March 7, 2009, the Defendant hospitalized D Hospital located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C on the ground of a 18-day ventilation, and on March 17, 2009, filed a claim for insurance proceeds with the employee in charge of the victim company for the submission of the relevant documents, such as a written confirmation of the release from a deposit for 18 days.

However, since the symptoms of the defendant at the time have been repeated by preservation and prescription, there was no need for the long-term hospitalization for 18 days as the substance of treatment is merely for outpatient treatment.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the employees in charge of the victim company, received KRW 2,062,940 on March 18, 2009 from the victim company to the Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the Defendant, and subsequently, received KRW 43,891,175 in total from that time to August 6, 2015, including the receipt of KRW 2,062,940 from the victim company to the Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the Defendant, and had repeated unnecessary long-term hospitalization over 35 occasions, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table, and did not receive substantive hospitalized treatment, such as from time to time during the period of hospitalization and from time to time to time to time

2. The Defendant alleged that he/she had been hospitalized at the time upon the solicitation of the doctor in charge at the time and received examination and treatment, and thus, he/she does not receive insurance proceeds by deceiving or deceiving an insurance company.

3. Determination

A. In a situation where there is a limitation in the method of diagnosis or treatment of a specific disease due to the limitation of modern medical science, and the patient’s suffering or inconvenience cannot be objectively numericalized, there is a risk of criminal punishment against a bona fide patient, if he/she is punished as a crime of fraud on the ground that he/she received hospitalized treatment beyond the average treatment period of a patient who appeals the same symptoms.