logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.01.19 2017노2404
사기
Text

Defendant

B All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) The Defendant was guilty of all the facts charged of this case in the absence of the fact that he was hospitalized only by actually hospitalized upon the doctor’s recommendation, and was hospitalized for a long time beyond the necessary level, by deceiving the damaged insurance company, thereby deceiving the insurance proceeds. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (defendant A), although the court below acquitted the defendant A of the facts charged in this case, although it could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant A was hospitalized in a false manner or hospitalized for a long time more than necessary despite the absence of a practical need for hospitalization, and could have taken the victim insurance company by deceiving the victim insurance company, the court below acquitted him of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of fact 1 is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the following: (a) Defendant B: (i) recorded 35 times during the period of hospitalization in the absence of records or absence of records; and (ii) recorded 44 times during the prescribed physical therapy; (b) Defendant B entered the court of the lower court with frequent appearance and outpatients; and (c) Defendant B entered the sick room in view of the nursing record, the Plaintiff stated that “I were able to drink in the sick room while drinking or going out of the sick room; and (d) Defendant B, even if having been authorized to provide meals for the urology as stated in the reasoning of the lower court, was hospitalized, there was no need for hospitalization as stated in the judgment, thereby deceiving the insurance company to receive appropriate treatment by hospitalized in the instant hospital.”

arrow