The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant went to the hospital due to the blurgic pain, and the head of the hospital was hospitalized by soliciting the hospital to be hospitalized, and then received the insurance money after receiving medical treatment by being hospitalized normally.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that it erred and convicted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. “Hospitalization” refers to a patient’s stay in a hospital and receiving treatment under the observation and management of the medical staff, in accordance with the following provisions: (a) where continuous observation of the medical staff is necessary with respect to side effects or incidental effects of drugs low in resistance to, or administered by, the patient’s disease; (b) where the patient’s pain and drinking food need to be continuously administered; (c) where the patient’s condition is in a state where the patient is unable to cope with pain or where the patient’s risk of infection exists; and (d) where the patient suffers treatment while staying in the hospital; and (e) where the patient remains in the hospital for at least six hours pursuant to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s notice, including detailed matters on the criteria and method for applying medical care benefits; and (e) whether the patient was hospitalized based only on the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment procedures; and the patient’s actions; and (e) where the patient took a fixed procedure after undergoing hospitalization and treatment; and (e) the patient’s remaining treatment period and supervision during his/her stay in the hospital or part of the patient.

Supreme Court Decision 206.1.