logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.06.14 2013노221
사기
Text

Defendant

D All appeals against the Defendant A, B, C, and E of the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found Defendant D guilty of this part of the facts charged against Defendant D even though he was hospitalized at an I Hospital normally during each period specified in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

(2) The lower court’s sentence (fine 500,000) imposed on Defendant D is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the above Defendants (the defendants A, B, C, and E) on the ground that both Defendants A, B, C, and E obtained false medical certificates, etc. even without having been hospitalized in the I Hospital, and received the insurance money on the basis of such false medical certificates, etc., was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. Determination

A. (1) The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant D: (i) The president of the I Hospital: (a) falsely prepared a medical certificate; (b) fraud (at the time of operating I Hospital, failing to hospitalized treatment for patients or failing to provide normal medical treatment; and (c) by applying for medical care benefits to the National Health Insurance Corporation after submitting false documents; and (d) fraud (the receipt of medical care benefits by providing false medical certificates and certificates of release from deposits to patients) by the investigative agency; and (b) under the investigation conducted by the investigative agency on the basis of the data such as the medical table, the counsel and sufficient discussions were conducted; and (c) separately pointed out the sight table presented by the investigative agency, by distinguishing the patient from the normal in-patient and the patient; and accordingly, (d) the prosecutor shall make a decision not to prosecute the patient who is asserted by G as a normal in-patient.

arrow