The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal reasoning that a defendant received hospitalized treatment is merely conducted within an appropriate scope upon the recommendation of a medical institution, and the defendant does not receive hospitalized treatment for the purpose of deceiving an insurance company and deceiving the insurance company.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the ground for ex officio appeal as to the part of the statute of limitations, we examine the following facts: (a) No. 1 of the list of offenses in the instant indictment No. 1 (the date on which the insurance money was issued on November 7, 2007), 2 (the date on which the insurance money was issued on November 15, 2007), 3 (the date on which the insurance money was issued on November 8, 2007) and 5 (the date on which the insurance money was issued on November 12, 2007) and 6 (the date on which the insurance money was issued), and 5 (the date on which the insurance money was delivered on November 15, 2007) among the facts charged in the instant case.

Since the statutory penalty for fraud is less than 10 years, Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), and Article 249 (1) 4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the statute of limitations shall be seven years. The indictment for each of the above parts is obvious that the prosecution was instituted on February 18, 2016, after seven years from the date of payment of each of the above insurance proceeds.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes the completion of the statute of limitations, and thus, a judgment of acquittal under Article 326 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be rendered. However, the court below convicted of this part of the facts charged. Since the court below rendered a single sentence by deeming each of the above facts charged and the remaining crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the remainder of the facts charged except for the above acquittal, even if there are such reasons for reversal.