The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was hospitalized in order to treat a person who was injured by brain-dead death, etc. by committing an actual assault, and was hospitalized for rehabilitation exercise or going out to meals with his/her child, and continued to be hospitalized without a doctor’s instructions to discharge him/her, and did not intend to obtain insurance proceeds by intentionally being hospitalized for a long time.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (hereinafter “the penalty”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the relevant legal doctrine requires continuous observation by a medical staff in relation to side effects or incidental effects of drugs which have low resistance to or are administered by the patient’s disease, where the management of nutritional conditions and food intake needs to be continued, and thus, the patient’s pains rather inconvenience in treating the patient, or where the patient’s condition is in a state of being unable to cope with the patient’s disease or where the patient’s risk of infection exists, etc., the patient is receiving treatment while staying in the hospital. As such, the determination of whether the patient is hospitalized based on the medical staff’s observation and management cannot be made based on the patient’s symptoms, treatment details, and actions of the patient, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 206Do4665, May 28, 2009). However, according to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, the determination of whether the patient was hospitalized cannot be made based on the period of his/her stay in the hospital (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do46565, May 28, 2009).

However, the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below is as follows.