The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant did not have caused urology at the time of entering into an insurance contract with the victim insurance company, and even if the Defendant was aware of the occurrence of urology, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim (misunderstanding of the fact) even though her was aware of the occurrence of urology. The sentence (3 million won) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing). 2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was diagnosed with urology under medical treatment from March 13, 2002 to March 22, 2002 at the East National University and its racing Hospital.

On December 18, 2002, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 357,200 per month insurance premium to an insurance product called “non-distribution Vietnam insurance” to the victim M&C Co., Ltd., and purchased an insurance contractor and the insured as the Defendant.

From May 25, 2006 to June 3, 2006, the Defendant hospitalized in Ulsan-si Hospital located in Ulsan-si for 10 days, such as gurar/gral/darsis disorder, human sulgin-nurine-nurine-nurgic urine disease, etc., and claimed insurance proceeds from the victim company around July 10, 2006.

However, in fact, the Defendant had already been covered by the insurance policy with the concealment of the infectious disease that occurred and had already been covered by the insurance policy, and the Defendant could not receive insurance money due to the impossibility of being covered by the insurance policy when the Defendant informed the victim of the infectious disease to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 1,240,000 from the victim company as insurance money on August 2, 2006, as well as received KRW 1,240,000 from August 2, 2006 to February 15, 2016, filed a claim for insurance money by committing an insurance contract in violation of the duty of disclosure as stated in the crime list in the judgment below, and obtained a total of KRW 21,30,000 from the victim company and acquired it by deception.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant developed urology, such as the instant charges, by integrating the evidence that correspond to the facts charged.