The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) the Defendant hospitalized the Defendant according to the direction of a doctor and faithfully received medical treatment, such as surgery, and each insurer paid the insurance proceeds through the verification process, such as visiting the Defendant’s medical record and meeting the intention in charge. Thus, the Defendant did not receive the insurance proceeds by deceiving the insurance doctor.

In particular, in the case of hospitalization 3 in the instant case as indicated in the judgment of the court below, since the Defendant actually hospitalized and received surgery and the adequate duration of hospitalization was not proven, the Defendant did not sufficiently prove that the Defendant’s infiniteizing the duration of hospitalization is not acceptable in light of social norms.

Judgment

In light of the facts and circumstances revealed through each evidence in the judgment of the court below, the defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rendered a judgment guilty of fraud on the ground that the defendant received hospital Nos. 1 and 2 of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below, although there is no need for hospital treatment, and that long-term hospitalization was acknowledged as long as it is necessary as the defendant had an intention to receive a large amount of insurance money than the insurance money actually paid

The following judgments shall be added with regard to the matters for which the defendant asserts again in the trial.

Each hospitalized treatment for the defendant received does not require hospitalization, or constitutes a long-term hospitalization for more than necessary.

Nevertheless, the defendant without notifying the insurance company of this, filed a claim for insurance proceeds by asserting that the period of hospitalization stipulated in the terms and conditions of the insurance contract has been satisfied, which constitutes fraud itself.

In addition, in the answer of the insurance company in the process of claiming insurance money, the defendant was living in Busan, but he was living in Kimhae, and he was living in Kimhae, and the defendant was living in Kimhae.

“Outing and staying out during the duration of hospitalization” and “outing and staying out.”