A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Although it is possible for the Defendant to receive insurance money after having falsely hospitalized, using the fact that the insurance money was paid when the Defendant was hospitalized in his/her insurance contract, he/she was hospitalized on July 3, 2010 with the fact that he/she was dead at the D Hospital located in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si C, Ansan-si, and then was hospitalized in the same year.

7. The discharge was 26.

However, there was no need for hospital treatment because the Defendant could receive outpatient treatment, such as going out and staying outside, during the period of hospitalization.

In fact, the defendant from July 3, 2010 to the same year.

7. On July 28, 2010, a medical certificate and a certificate of hospitalization and release from a hospital was issued by the pertinent D Hospital on July 28, 2010, even if the hospital received the outpatient treatment until the date of 26.

In addition, on July 29, 2010, the medical certificate issued with false E-life, F-insurance, and the certificate of entry and discharge were submitted, and the insurance money was claimed.

On July 29, 2010, the Defendant deceptioned an insurance company as to hospitalized treatment as above, and received total of KRW 1,490,530, including KRW 525,000 from the victim E-resources and KRW 965,530 from the F insurance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A witness G and H’s legal statement;

1. Copy of the statement made to I by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (involuntary absence of hospitalization);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the facts charged in this case are not guilty since the defendant actually hospitalized in the hospital as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) the Defendant was identified as a suspect by the category of H, the head of the hospital’s office, and there is no particular reason for H to gather the Defendant; and (ii) the police G to which the Defendant investigated the Defendant is difficult due to the circumstances.