logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.16 2017노894
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The result of medical analysis of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the mobile phone calls of the accused, and the head of nursing department;

In full view of the statements, etc. of related persons such as G, the lower court is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was hospitalized as a criminal intent to acquire insurance money.

Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Defendant. The Defendant actually received medical care at the instant hospital to recover from the hospital after undergoing the surgery, and the Defendant was willing to be hospitalized, but the decision of hospitalization was intended to examine the Defendant. In fact, most of the Defendant’s patients were hospitalized in the case of the same patient as the Defendant. The medical doctors who treated the Defendant at the time performed most of the drugs, medication, and medication during the period of hospitalization. Although the Defendant had taken out without permission, it appears that the horses were considerably significant, the Defendant did not appear to have taken part in the care of the hospital, and that there was no need to be hospitalized in the above circumstances.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant did not have purchased the insurance immediately before hospital treatment, but had already been insured more than the day of claiming the insurance money, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was hospitalized as a criminal intent to acquire the insurance money, even though hospital treatment could not be acceptable as a means of exercising social norms, or that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was hospitalized with the intent to obtain the insurance money, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The above-mentioned facts of the court below are duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

arrow