The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant, at the time of entering into the instant insurance contract, notified the insurance solicitor, etc. of the fact that he/she was guilty, the court below recognized the facts charged and convicted the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for a judgment of mistake of facts refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have a good faith and good faith to observe each other in a property transaction. Such passive acts refer to a person subject to the duty of disclosure under the law does not inform the other party of the fact 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 is defined in the terms and conditions set by the insurance company and claims the insurance money on the grounds of the occurrence of the disease without notifying the fact, unless there are special circumstances, the intention of deception or fraud can be acknowledged in the crime of fraud, and the insurance company is negligent in not knowing the fact.

It does not affect the establishment of a crime of fraud by allowing the cancellation of an insurance contract for breach of duty of disclosure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do967, Apr. 12, 2007). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant, despite the fact that he had received hospitalized treatment due to catology, chatology, etc., he/she notified the company of the subscription to the insurance of this case.