The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. According to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings as to the Scope of Adjudication in this Court, an applicant may not appeal against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation or partially accepting the application for compensation, and may not file the same application for compensation again (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do7968, Aug. 24, 2016). An applicant for compensation after having filed an application for compensation at the court below and received a decision dismissing the application for compensation at the court below, and then filed the same application for compensation at the court at the same time. An applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and thus, the case of applying for compensation order at the court below becomes final and conclusive immediately, and therefore, the portion of dismissing the application for compensation order among the

In addition, since the applicant for compensation filed the same application for compensation again against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation, the application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation in this court is in side legal.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts), the fact that the defendant claims the insurance money after being hospitalized by false means and acquired it by fraud can be recognized.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the defendant, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant underwent a surgery on June 2014.

While the Defendant had been in a free state after surgery, compared to large-scale general hospitals, etc., relatively low patient management, hospitalized in a convalescent hospital with free staying outside of the country, and going out of the country during the day, and the Defendant was able to obtain the daily allowances for hospitalization after false hospitalization, such as living a life, etc.

Defendant 1, from August 24, 2017 to December 29, 2017, on the grounds of the prevention, management, treatment, etc. of recurrence after the said surgery.