The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant, without being hospitalized immediately after the occurrence of a traffic accident; (b) continued to run private taxi business up to the new wall following the following day; and (c) 1 private taxi business and 2 LPG chargings even during the period of hospitalization at the hospital, the Defendant is sufficiently able to sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant received hospital treatment in order to receive a high amount of insurance agreement, and obtained pecuniary benefits from H, even if it is sufficiently sufficient for the Defendant to receive a high amount of insurance agreement.

2. In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having proved without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant acquired money by deceiving the victim, and that there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the conclusion prosecutor is dismissed.