All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation filed by the lower court (in early 2017, early 205), and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and thus, this part is excluded from the scope of the relevant trial.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (defendants) suffered from astronomical consciousness, and repeating multiple hospitalized treatments, etc. even before entering into the instant insurance contract, and thus, an insurance with which it is possible to guarantee hospitalized treatment, where the need to purchase an insurance policy exists.

The average period of hospitalization of the citizen determined by the lower court based on the recognition of the Defendant’s long-term hospitalization is the average period of hospitalization, and only the Defendant was hospitalized by the doctor in charge.

The defendant lives mixed with old age and received hospitalized treatment due to lack of family members, and has been treated again at a specific hospital with experience in receiving medical treatment.

Although the defendant had been staying out and staying out during the period of hospitalization, all of them are recorded as staying out and staying out in a very short time, and they are recorded more excessively than the actual time of leaving.

In light of the fact that most of the insurance money received by the defendant was actually used for hospital treatment, and the defendant suffers from a variety of diseases, it is not possible to be called excessive medical treatment, but to extend the duration of hospitalization to receive medical treatment more than necessary.

does not mean that they are.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The defendant asserts that the sentence of the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence is too unhued and unfair.

3.