The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant is a person of Grade 4, Grade 3, Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 4, Grade 4, and Grade 3 with hearing or hearing impairment, and is a person who, without certain occupation, received basic living benefits for about four years prior to a certain period of occupation and lives.

During the period from September 3, 2009 to August 11, 2012, the Defendant had been receiving medical treatment with “urterology, cryptosis, etc.” at B Hospital located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul. On April 3, 2002, the Defendant was judged as “degree 4 of non-functional disability due to urine and spine disease,” and there was a physical external disorder to the extent that he depends on the electric wheelchairs before several years.

Nevertheless, the Defendant used the fact that the contractor or the insured is able to buy an insurance policy without face-to-face and by telephone answering questions. On August 31, 2012, the Defendant called at the Defendant’s residence located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) call to the call center, and applied for the insurance policy to a named counselor. Of the questions of the telephone counselor to confirm the subscription conditions before the subscription, the Defendant responded to “no” in the clause “I have physical disability or past treatment experience,” and informed and explained as the insured by failing to fulfill the good faith obligation to notify and explain in advance, such as hiding the Defendant’s disability and disease, and deceiving the damaged insurance company on December 28, 2012, and then requested the insurance policy for the reason that “Along with the very hot cause of Kim Jong-gu’s land in the house on November 25, 2012, it was issued from the insurance company on August 30, 2013.”

In addition, the Defendant took four occasions, such as the crime sight table attached from around that time to August 23, 2016, a sum of KRW 1.84,00,00 against the victim C and D, and withdrawal of property benefits against the victim C and E two times, and the victims were entitled to insurance benefits on the ground of the Defendant’s breach of duty of disclosure.