The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won, and a fine of 1,50,000 won, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendants had been sick before the times, and the illness aggravated, and only received normal hospitalized treatment at C hospital, etc.

C Hospital AE has medical knowledge and clear judgment ability necessary to diagnose and treat patients, and selects C Hospital under the judgment that physical therapy and therapy can improve the conditions of the Defendants rather than surgery.

No one has been staying out or going out without permission.

Most of them are determined to pay insurance money through investigation such as on-site search of victim insurance companies.

In consideration of these circumstances, there was fraud of insurance money.

Although it cannot be seen, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In a case where continuous observation by a medical personnel is required in relation to the side effects or incidental effects of the patient's low resistance ability or the drugs administered by him/her, in a case where the management of nutritional conditions and the foods ingested is necessary, where the patient's pains are in need of continuous administration of medication and food, and where the patient's pains rather inconvenience in treatment, the patient is in a situation where the patient's condition is unable to cope with the pain or where the patient's risk of infection exists, etc., and where the patient stays in the hospital and receives treatment.

Whether hospitalization is necessary ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the symptoms of the patient, the details and circumstances of the diagnosis and treatment, the patient’s behavior, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5903, Mar. 15, 2017). Moreover, the aforementioned hospitalization is not only where the substance of one treatment constitutes outpatient treatment, not hospital treatment, but also where the substance of one treatment constitutes hospital treatment.