beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On January 25, 2010 and July 21, 2012, the Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts, where he/she applied to a hospital due to symptoms, such as a double drum and drum, and was found to have been diagnosed with chronic ruplicity, but failed to be aware of the fact that he/she was brain duplicated, because he/she could not be notified or explained by a doctor.
Therefore, even if the defendant did not notify the fact that he suffered cerebral scam from each insurance company while purchasing four insurance companies after the judgment of the court below, it cannot be viewed that he had a criminal intent to acquire scam by the defendant.
B. The lower court’s sentence on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have a good faith and good faith to observe each other in property transaction. The deception by omission refers to a passive act that a person subject to the duty of disclosure under law does not inform the other party of a certain fact with knowledge that the other party has been involved in a mistake. Thus, if a person suffering from a specific disease enters into an insurance contract with an insurance company that knows that the obligation of disclosure on the terms and conditions set by the insurance company provides for the duty of disclosure of the disease and claims the insurance money on the grounds of the occurrence of the disease immediately after the insurance company knew of the fact, barring any special circumstances, the intention of deception or fraud can be recognized in fraud, and the insurance company was negligent in not knowing the fact.
the establishment of a crime of fraud is not affected by the fact that an insurance contract may be terminated for breach of duty of disclosure.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do967 Decided April 12, 2007).