The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the result of the analysis of the medical records of the Defendant, and the evidence of the E hospital nurse I, and Cho Jae-man F, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was hospitalized without the need for hospitalized treatment, and that the Defendant received the insurance money from hospitalization from the victim insurance companies, and obtained it by fraud.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. An ex officio decision-making prosecutor has reached the first instance trial, and the following [the revised facts charged] applied for changes in the indictment, and the court permitted the above application for changes in the indictment and changed the subject of the trial in the first instance trial, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the facts charged in the original judgment and the facts charged in the trial are substantially identical to the basic facts, and the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor are subject to the judgment of the court of this case, and the following are examined (in this regard, the defendant's defense counsel argues that the basic facts between the facts charged in the original judgment and the facts charged as modified in the original trial should not be permitted. However, the principal deception of the facts charged in the original judgment is that "the defendant was hospitalized even if the defendant was in need of hospital treatment without normal hospitalization," and the principal deception of the modified facts charged does not mean that "the defendant was hospitalized even if the defendant was in need of hospital treatment," and the basic facts are identical, and the issues are also identical, and whether the necessity of hospital treatment and normal hospital treatment have been implemented, thereby hindering the defendant's exercise of right to defense." [The modified facts charged]