beta
Text
The judgment below
All parts, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant
B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendants, who are misunderstanding of facts, merely received an appropriate period of hospitalized treatment according to the prescription of a arche doctor, and did not receive insurance money by deceiving an insurance company. In the case of Defendant A, the so-called so-called “mental disorder” may have been suffered and thus continued hospitalized treatment due to their influence.
Nevertheless, the lower court: (a) based on the evidence such as the response of the Health Insurance Review Evaluation Institute, which was not reliable; and (b) acquired insurance money through
As such, there is an error of mistake in fact.
B. The sentence of the lower court (in case of Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. In the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, the prosecutor examined “in the case of injury” in Article 1(1) A of the facts charged against Defendant A as “a disease”, “the most probable after hospitalized treatment was conducted” in Article 1(1) of the facts charged as “after hospitalized treatment,” and “a false certificate of discharge from entrance” was “a certificate of discharge from entrance”; “the injury,” in Article 2(2) of the facts charged against Defendant B as “a disease,” “after hospitalized treatment was conducted”; “the most probable after hospitalized treatment was conducted”; and “a false certificate of discharge from entrance” was amended by this court to “a certificate of discharge from entrance”; and “a false certificate of amendment to a bill of amendment to a bill of amendment was amended by this court’s permission. Therefore, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
However, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake as to the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the modified facts charged, even if there are such grounds for reversal ex officio. Therefore, this paper examines the following Section 3.
3. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts
A. Determination as to Defendant A 1) Defendant A’s charges against Defendant A are as follows: from September 29, 1999 to September 14, 2010.