All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the crimes described in paragraph (2) of the indictment), the insurance money that the Defendant claimed excessively is limited to treatment, such as high-frequency cancer treatment expenses, and hedging. Nevertheless, the lower court calculated the total insurance money paid, including the remainder (excluding pharmaceutical medication expenses, outpatient treatment expenses, meals, document issuance expenses, and daily hospitalization expenses) as the damage amount. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending of legal principles, and the lower court’s sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment) that the lower court rendered on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. In the event that an insurance company claims the payment of insurance proceeds upon the occurrence of an insurance accident, and uses unlawful means, such as forging materials to calculate the amount of damage or attaching a statement of transaction, etc. containing false contents, barring special circumstances, the act of fraud, barring special circumstances, is deemed to have commenced as exceeding the permissible extent as a means of exercise of rights under social norms. In a case where excessive insurance proceeds were received due to such deception, a crime of fraud is established against the total amount of the insurance proceeds received (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2134, May 11, 2007). It is not established only for the remainder, other than the amount equivalent to the insurance proceeds which the insurance company

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6690 Decided January 26, 2012, etc.). B.

Judgment

In the lower court, the Defendant argued the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the lower court, even if there are grounds to receive insurance proceeds, has been excessive insurance proceeds through long-term hospitalization, etc. with the intention to acquire a large amount of insurance proceeds than the insurance proceeds that can be actually paid due to theization