logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2016.10.11 2016고단380
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim from May 1, 2012 to September of the same month.

Reasons

Around December 3, 2002, the Defendant subscribed to 10 insurance from around December 3, 2002 to around March 17, 2008 to 2008. In particular, 8 insurance were concentrated between 2007 and 2008.

The aggregate of the premiums to be paid monthly for the above 10 insurances is equivalent to KRW 1,240,581, and among them, the aggregate of premiums to be paid monthly for only four insurances that have been maintained up to now reaches KRW 791,541.

The above insurance products are insurance products that are paid duplicate insurance money under the name of the daily hospitalization regardless of the actual treatment costs when they are hospitalized in a hospital due to a disaster or disease. Despite the absence of any special revenue, the Defendant subscribed to a large number of security insurance as above in spite of the absence of such special revenue, and the Defendant has repeatedly hospitalized for a long period, despite the fact that there is no need for hospital treatment.

The Defendant was hospitalized in the hospital under the name of sick person, such as acute scalfe, etc. from around December 30, 2007 to January 14, 2008, and was hospitalized in the hospital for 16 days from around 16 days, as well as from that time until October 21, 2014, and was hospitalized in the hospital over 52 times from that time to around 21, 2014 as shown in the attached list of crimes.

However, as above, the Defendant was hospitalized in a hospital and was staying outside the hospital from time to time while receiving treatment, and was hospitalized in a astronomical surgery, and was determined that there was no need to receive treatment any longer when hospitalized in a hospital and received treatment, and accordingly, the Defendant was hospitalized in another hospital and then received treatment again in another hospital under the same name. As such, the Defendant is actually in need of hospitalized treatment whenever hospitalized in the hospital.

arrow