All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

An application for compensation filed by an applicant for compensation in the trial of the party shall be dismissed.

1. The lower court rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, but the judgment dismissing the application for compensation by the lower court cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation (see Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). This part of the application for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

On the other hand, against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation, the applicant cannot make the same application for compensation again (see Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings), and the application for compensation by the court of the original instance is unlawful as it is the same application for compensation as that of the original judgment

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal - Defendant A was hospitalized from January 2007 to February 2, 2014 in total of KRW 250 million and received approximately KRW 254 million. Defendant B was hospitalized in total from January 2007 to February 2014 and received approximately KRW 210,000,000 from January 2007 to February 2014.

In full view of the fact that the Defendants paid excessive insurance proceeds compared to their economic capabilities, that they subscribed to the goods for which high-quality hospitalization insurance proceeds are paid, and that the results of the analysis of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, it can be recognized that the Defendants joined the insurance products with the intent of deception and entered the unnecessary hospitalization. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the facts charged

3. The prosecutor asserts that “Defendant A was hospitalized from January 2007 to February 2014 and received approximately KRW 254 million from around 1278,000,000,000. Defendant B was hospitalized in total from January 2007 to February 2014 and received approximately KRW 210,000,000,000 from around 1,000 to February 2014, the Defendants alleged that the Defendants were hospitalized for a long period of time exceeding the appropriate hospitalization period, but the facts charged in this case are “Defendant A.”