All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the Defendants’ timing of purchasing each insurance policy, monthly insurance premium, amount of insurance money paid per hospitalization day, the Defendants’ disease and hospitalization process, and the process of examining the payment of insurance money, etc., the Defendants intentionally subscribed to the insurance by defraudation, and committed deception by fixing the Defendants for a long time more than necessary.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

B. Prosecution’s improper sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court.

Therefore, the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, received the insurance money corresponding to the period of hospitalization from the damaged insurance companies without notifying the Defendants of the fact that the Defendants could have sufficiently achieved the purpose of treatment due to temporary hospitalization or outpatient treatment, but was hospitalized for more than necessary long-term period, and acquired it by deception.

The recognition was recognized.

In light of the legal principles as to fraud, the number and timing of, and the circumstances leading to, the Defendants’ respective hospitalization, the type and number of medical institutions that received the treatment, the physical condition and diagnosis at the time of hospitalization, the contents of the treatment received by the Defendants during the duration of hospitalization, the number of outing and behavior of the Defendants during the duration of hospitalization, the interval between the insurance subscription and the initial date of hospitalization, the time and interval between the insurance subscription and the initial date of hospitalization, the economic condition of the Defendants, the amount of insurance, the amount of insurance money, whether the Defendants were hospitalized during the investigation or during the litigation, the relationship between the Defendants, etc., as stated in the judgment of the court below, are more than the insurance money that can be actually paid for the treatment or the treatment of the Defendants even if the purpose of the treatment can be sufficiently achieved solely on the basis of