The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of the facts, H diagnosed the Defendant by the AMA method, and then issued a written diagnosis of disability after the instant case. In accordance with the AMA method, a doctor has the discretion to determine “payment rate by each type under the assessment table of daily basic action restricting disability.”

At the time of the above diagnosis, the Defendant merely stated that “I cannot walk without help of stick” to the doctor H, and there is no false statement about matters that can change the payment rate.

Therefore, there is no fact that the defendant committed deception with the intent to acquire insurance money.

2) The results of the video reproduction (Nos. 57 and 56, Nos. 59 and 60) adopted as evidence by the court below as evidence is admissible as evidence since it is proved that investigative agencies or private persons have taken pictures in front of the defendant and illegally collected.

(b) Sentencing (the sentence of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months and two years of the suspension of execution).

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant alleged to the same effect as the lower court, and the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

In addition to the above circumstances revealed by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

The method of measurement applied at the time of the diagnosis for the issuance of a certificate of disability after the diagnosis to the defendant is "AMA measurement". Since the test depends on the statement of the inspector, etc., it is possible for the inspector to intentionally extend the exerciseable scope by falsehood, and there is no method to confirm it as the inspector.

The defendant on June 4, 2015.