beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, even though the defendant was hospitalized for a long time more than necessary to acquire insurance money by deceit even though he did not need hospitalization.
2. Determination
A. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., medical practice reflects the inherent experience or knowledge of the physician in the treatment process as an act requiring high level of expertise and thus, reflects the inherent experience or knowledge in the treatment process. The lower court acknowledged the following facts: “The Defendant was admitted to the insurance company of the fourth group as indicated in the facts charged of this case and received insurance money from the hospital several times from 2007 to 2013; the Defendant did not file an application for distribution on several occasions during the hospitalization period; the Defendant did not undergo blood pressure, blood transfusion, etc.; the record of “in the absence” was recorded in the medical record site; the appropriate number of hospitalization days during the period of the Defendant’s hospitalization as indicated in the facts charged of this case is only seven days, and the remaining period is only seven days, and there is no reasonable ground for the treatment.
Even if the method and period of treatment can vary, only accepted the result of consultation on medical records conducted by one advisory agency on medical records, and hospitalized for a long time, although the defendant does not need to be hospitalized.
Inasmuch as it cannot be readily determined, 2) the Defendant was staying out and staying outside solely on the ground that the Defendant did not apply for a food, or was not subject to blood pressure and blood transfusion.
It can not be readily concluded, and there is a mark "in the absence" in the medical record area.
On the other hand, the defendant goes out and stay outside.