The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant actually claimed insurance money after being hospitalized due to the necessity of hospitalization, and there is no fact of deceiving the damaged insurance company.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. Determination means that a patient suffers from a treatment while staying in a hospital for more than 6 hours under the observation and management of a medical staff in accordance with the following provisions: (a) where continuous observation of a medical staff is necessary with respect to side effects or incidental effects of a patient’s disease, where the patient’s health condition and food need to be continuously controlled; and (b) where the patient’s health care is in a state where the patient’s condition is unable to cope with pain or where the patient’s risk of infection exists; and (c) the patient suffers from a treatment while staying in the hospital for more than 6 hours; (d) however, determination of whether a patient is hospitalized based only on the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment; and (e) the patient’s treatment details and circumstances; and (e) the patient’s actions, etc. need to be comprehensively taken into account.

In addition, even if there is a reason to receive one insurance money, if excessive insurance money is paid through long-term hospitalization with the intention to acquire a large amount of insurance money than the insurance money that can be actually paid through the realization, a crime of fraud is established against the entire insurance money that is paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4665, May 28, 2009). Examining the following circumstances recognized by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the defendant’s damage is sustained.