The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below rejected an application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, but pursuant to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Thus, the part dismissing the application for compensation order is immediately determined and thus excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court.

2. Comprehensively taking account of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the details of the Defendant’s hospitalization, the payment of insurance money, and the result of the assessment by the Health Insurance Review Board, the fact that the Defendant was hospitalized in excess of the extent necessary for the actual treatment and acquired the insurance money by fraud

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was hospitalized with the intent of acquiring insurance money, even though the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, or that the Defendant’s hospitalized treatment was not acceptable as a means of exercising the right in light of social norms, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire by deceit, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.

1) On December 30, 2010, the Defendant began to receive hospitalized treatment after getting out of the ice ice laund. Of the seven insurance contracts listed in the facts charged, the remaining six cases except for the contract with H among the seven insurance contracts indicated in the facts charged were subscribed between 1999 and 2008, and the above seven total insurance premiums cannot be deemed excessive compared to the Defendant’s economic power over the aggregate of KRW 2.60,000 per month. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have bought an insurance policy unreasonably for the purpose of insurance company from the beginning.

(ii)..