The judgment of the court below is reversed.

In six months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in paragraph 1(a) of the judgment of the defendant, the decision No. 1 of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (i.e., each crime of paragraph 1(a) of the judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and ② imprisonment with prison labor for one year) for one of the crimes of paragraph 1(b) of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In relation to the fraud against the victim C Co., Ltd. which was pronounced not guilty of the reasoning in the lower court’s determination (Nos. 7 through 9, 11 through 13 of the List of Crimes Attached to the lower judgment), the fraud against the victim H Co., Ltd. (No. 1 through 5, 7 through 9, 12 through 14, 23 through 26, 31, 33 through 35, 45, 46 of the List of Crimes Attached to the lower judgment), according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the victim was hospitalized without the necessity of hospitalization is false and the insurance money was received from the victims can be acknowledged.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On the ground that the lower court’s assertion of mistake as to the facts No. 13 per annum of the crime List No. 13 attached to the lower judgment is acceptable based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the period of hospitalization No. 13 (Name 1 of the Crime List No. 1 of the lower judgment: 13 (Name 1 of the Health Insurance Review Evaluation Institute): the period of hospitalization: from November 3, 2012 to November 15, 2012), the Defendant expressed his/her opinion that the remainder of the period of hospitalization, excluding the appropriate period of seven days, should be determined to be excessive (74 pages of the investigation record), and there is no circumstance to see that the Defendant’s opinion on this review is unreasonable; (ii) the name of the Defendant’s hospitalization appears to be acceptable for an ordinary case in the light of the following: (iii) the period of hospitalization, the need for treatment by the victim during which the Defendant was hospitalized; and (iv) the need for treatment by the victim.