logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노266
사기
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The defendant above.

Reasons

1. The gist of reasons for appeal was hospitalized by the defendant;

According to the status of patient management of G hospital and the health status of the defendant, the defendant could be deemed to have received 14,369,685 won of insurance money by deceiving the victim insurance company as if he/she had been under normal hospitalized treatment even though he/she did not receive proper hospitalized treatment.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the G hospital operated in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, which is operated in an abnormal manner by facilitating entry into, discharge from, and unauthorized outing and staying out of, the so-called office hospital, and making it easy for the G hospital to stay out of, without permission, and making confirmation of hospitalization to the patients even if the hospital

The Defendant filed a claim for insurance proceeds with the Victim Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on the ground that he/she was hospitalized in G hospital from March 10, 2014 to March 31, 2014, on the ground that he/she received treatment, but did not have received substantial hospitalized treatment, including that he/she had received medical treatment during the aforementioned period. However, the Defendant was issued KRW 14,369,685 of the insurance proceeds by repeatedly hospitalized five times in total, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including that he/she was urged the victim as above and received KRW 950,00 from the victim on April 2, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victims and received property as insurance money.

B. The lower court determined that, in light of the fact that the Defendant was hospitalized in a hospital after having been hospitalized at another hospital after having undergone various types of surgery, such as climatic climatic surgery, climatic surgery in the aftermathic climatic surgery, cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cliffic cli

It is difficult to conclude that patients are out of the hospital, even if G hospital, they are out of the hospital.

arrow