The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant, at the request of a doctor, has been hospitalized to treat diseases, such as chronic hepatitiss, and there was no intention to obtain insurance money.

In a case where continuous observation by a medical personnel is required in relation to side effects or incidental effects of drugs which have low resistance to, or are administered by, a patient’s disease, the relevant legal principles on determination of the determination of the illegality of sentencing refer to the treatment under the observation and management of a medical personnel while staying in the hospital for at least six hours pursuant to the following provisions: (a) where the patient’s health condition and food need to be continuously administered; (b) where the patient’s health conditions are in a situation where the patient is unable to cope with the patient’s condition or where the patient’s risk of infection exists; and (c) where the patient stays in the hospital and receives treatment; and (d) where the patient remains in the hospital for at least six hours, the patient’s health care benefit standard and method should be determined by taking into account the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of the patient; and the patient’s behavior.

In addition, the act of claiming insurance money by asserting that the substance of the treatment falls under the hospital treatment rather than the hospital treatment by comprehensively assessing the duration of the stay in the hospital, the symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of the patient, the details and circumstances of the treatment, and the behavior of the patient, as well as the case of long-term hospitalization without notifying the necessity of hospitalization, the act of claiming insurance money by asserting that the insurance company satisfied the duration of hospitalization stipulated in the insurance terms and conditions constitutes deception in fraud. In the event of the exercise of the right by deception, the act of exercising the