The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defluence of facts) the reply by the Health Insurance Review Board to review the hospitalization of the Health Insurance Review Board (A and No. 32) is admissible as evidence as “documents prepared under particularly reliable circumstances” pursuant to Article 315 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the foregoing health insurance review response by the Health Insurance Review Board as well as the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant received excessive hospitalized treatment in order to receive insurance money under the name of the medical treatment even though there is no need for hospitalization can be acknowledged.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is doubtful as to whether the defendant was excessively hospitalized for the purpose of deceiving insurance money in light of the fact that the defendant subscribed to multiple insurance and paid excessive insurance premiums, and was hospitalized without permission during hospitalization. However, as long as the defendant does not consent to the admissibility of evidence, the evidence submitted by the Health Insurance Review Evaluation Institute (A) is inadmissible as it is not proven to be genuine by the statement of the person who made a statement pursuant to Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as long as the defendant does not consent to the admissibility of evidence; ② G analysis data testified that the nurse H, the author, was present in the court of the court of original instance and the opinion of the court of original judgment is different from the final judgment of the Health Insurance Examination Evaluation Institute; ③ It is difficult to readily conclude the criminal intent by deceit of the defendant, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in light of the fact that the doctor who treated the defendant was proper at the time, J, or K,

In addition, the facts charged of this case were pronounced not guilty on the ground that they were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

B. In addition to the following circumstances which can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below's judgment as stated in the above circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of evidence.