The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The application for compensation order of this case shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty in violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles, even though the defendant did not have any criminal intent because he was hospitalized in a hospital and received normal treatment at the request of the defendant as a result of the defendant's request because the defendant was unable to lead a severe pain and normal life due to the fact that he was actually dead, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the court's entrustment of appraisal to the Korea Medical Association of the court of original judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's June 25, 2010-

7. 9. Hospitalization and August 10, 2010 to

8. 24. In the case of hospitalization, the fact that it appears that the hospitalization was not problematic (the trial record 174, 175 pages) may be admitted.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below including the above appraisal commission, the defendant can fully be admitted the fact that the defendant acquired money in the name of insurance money from the victims by false or exaggerated admission. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

① From February 28, 2011 to February 28, 201

3. Hospitalization on June 16, and from June 23, 2011 to June 23, 201

7. In case of hospitalization, it is evident that hospitalization is not necessary even if it is based on the result of a request for appraisal by the court of original instance.

(2) The appraiser of the lower court on June 25, 2010 to June 25, 2010

7. 9. Hospitalization and August 10, 2010 to

8. The 24. The question askeding the necessity of hospitalization as to the hospitalization was the assumptive answer that “if a hospitalization is serious, it would be reasonable for the hospitalization.” This is not the objective determination on whether the hospitalization is necessary, but the answer that focuses on the issue of whether there is any defect in the decision that permitted the hospitalization, and it is merely the result of such an appraisal alone that there was a need for the hospitalization of the Defendant.