All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the defendants' frauds against the defendants), the defendants were hospitalized according to the doctor's diagnosis and received insurance money. Thus, the defendants deceiving the damaged insurance company.

It can not be seen that there was no intention of deceptiveation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: one year and eight months of imprisonment, three years of probation, observation of protection, community service work 200 hours, Defendant B’s imprisonment, one year of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, and community service 200 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants presented the same assertion as the grounds for appeal even in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the Defendants appear to have been hospitalized for a long time more than necessary for a disease that is far shorter than the actual hospitalization period and then claimed insurance proceeds corresponding to the hospitalization period. Thus, the Defendants can be recognized as having obtained excessive insurance proceeds and having committed fraud compared to the insurance proceeds actually received by the Defendants.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and there is a violation of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendants in the judgment below.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

(1) Defendant A: (a) was hospitalized with a specific symptoms, such as the high blood pressure of scare, knee-free knee-free scare, and other confrating frat, and discharged, and thereafter discharged from the hospital, Defendant A repeated the entrance and discharge of a specific hospital by changing the name of the same disease or the name of the disease at another hospital; and (b) Defendant B also repeated the entrance and discharge of a specific hospital by changing the name of the same disease at another hospital.