The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a considerable part of the hospitalization of the Defendant in the course of mistake of mistake (a hospitalization for treatment of the merger of the operation of the onboard cancer) was conducted due to a disease with a significant degree of hospitalization, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the above hospitalization portion among the facts charged in the instant case was established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The act of claiming insurance money without notifying the necessity of hospitalization on the ground that there is no need for hospitalization in the absence of the need for hospitalization, as well as the case where the substance of the treatment constitutes a long-term hospitalization beyond the necessary level by comprehensively determining the duration of stay in the hospital of determination of mistake, the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment details, and the patient’s behavior, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2941, Jun. 15, 2007). Also, there are grounds for payment of insurance proceeds.

Even if this is done, if excessive insurance money is paid through long-term hospitalization, etc. with intent to acquire a large amount of insurance money than the actual insurance money, a crime of fraud is established against the whole insurance money received.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant is guilty of committing a crime of fraud as to the total insurance money hospitalized or received by being hospitalized for a long time beyond the necessary scope, inasmuch as there is no need for hospitalized treatment, and the following circumstances established by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine: (a) the Defendant is deemed guilty of the facts charged.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and defense counsel is without merit.

(1) The defendant is 12 months between June 7, 2005 and August 11, 2005.