All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Each application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation against the Defendants is dismissed in entirety.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. The Defendants received insurance money as stated in the facts charged by mistake of facts.

However, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants were actually in need of hospital treatment at the time, and the Defendants were hospitalized under the doctor’s diagnosis to receive sufficient medical treatment.

Even if the Defendants wished to be hospitalized, these circumstances merely refer to one reference to the medical doctor who treated the Defendants, and the determination of whether to be hospitalized depends on the final intent of the medical doctor. Therefore, it cannot be said that the medical doctor who treated the Defendants was accused of the Defendants as to whether it is necessary to be hospitalized.

In the payment of insurance benefits, the victim insurance companies thought that the defendants should thoroughly examine whether the claims of the defendants are appropriate and pay the insurance proceeds only when the requirements for the payment of the insurance proceeds are met. Therefore, the defendants did not have the intention of deceiving the victims in claiming the insurance proceeds to the victim insurance companies.

In addition, as long as the victim insurance company examines the defendants' insurance claims and pays the insurance proceeds to the defendants, there is no causal relationship between the defendants' deception and the victims' disposal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. Each sentence on the Defendants of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of one year for each of the Defendants B and C, and two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for Defendant G) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the determination of mistake of facts is similar to the above grounds for appeal, and denied all the fraud alleged in the above facts charged.

However, the lower court.