The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. It is recognized that in accordance with the statement of the person in charge of the victim insurance company, the record of the medical record division, the statement of opinion, etc., the defendant acquired the insurance proceeds by deceit without notifying the spathnity of the contract.

In addition, the fact that the defendant received insurance proceeds for kidney treatment more than twice in total is also in the relationship of a single crime with other crimes more than 16 times and the statute of limitations has been over.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) with respect to the part of the notice of the ornamental infection, it was confirmed that there was no fact that the Defendant received diagnosis or treatment from the medical institution, such as the Defendant’s medical treatment from around August 29, 2003 to around March 4, 2005, the Defendant appears to have been engaged in physical labor by operating daily labor or packaging so that it appears that the Defendant had been mainly engaged in physical labor for a period of 7 years prior to the Defendant’s entry into an insurance contract; (b) according to the Defendant’s statement at his wife, it appears that there was no possibility that the Defendant had received treatment from the medical institution, such as satisfying, satfying, sating, satisfying, satching, satching, satching, satfying, satching, etc.; and (c) there was no possibility that the Defendant had received treatment from both hospitals before entering into an insurance contract.