The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that most of the patients entered in the list of criminal facts of the court below in the crime committed by the court below were discharged from the hospital by 5 to 6 hours after the operation, and the medical personnel continued to observe the patient's statement until the discharge of the patient, and even if according to the patient's statement, it is difficult to deem that the above patient was hospitalized. Even if the patient had been staying in a hospital for more than 6 hours and was admitted to have been hospitalized at a low time, the patient was forced to receive two-day hospitalization daily allowances from the insurance company as if he had been hospitalized for 2 days, not for 1 day, and thus, this constitutes deception, and there is a reason to receive insurance money.

Even if the court below acquitted the defendant of the charges of this case, even though the court below acquitted the defendant of the charges of this case, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the fact.

2. According to the evidence adopted, the lower court determined as to the primary facts charged: (a) even if the patients as stated in the facts charged did not have resided in the hospital for two days, he/she received a certificate of entry and discharge from the side of the above G Hospital, and submitted it to each insurance company for the acceptance of insurance money for loss insurance; and (b) on the side of the G Hospital, he/she promoted that he/she did not need to be hospitalized. However, such circumstance alone is that the Mamomomomomomomomoth surgery or the mamothromothosis surgery is not required to be hospitalized, or that the patients stated in the facts charged were not hospitalized after the surgery.