2013No1911-2 (Separation) Fraud

L

Prosecutor

Isle (prosecutions) and Court of Home Affairs (Trial)

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gohap366 Decided June 14, 2013

May 9, 2014

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Since the Defendant did not reside in the hospitalization room for more than 6 hours and did not receive any medical treatment during the period of money, and there is a difference between “one-day hospitalization” and “one-day hospitalization” and “two-day hospitalization,” the Defendant’s submission of a false written confirmation of hospitalization indicating that the Defendant was hospitalized for one-day one-day one-day two-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one-day one

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

Around February 24, 2010, the Defendant returned home without hospital treatment after undergoing a surgery for domination at “W Council” located on the 6th floor of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu V history. However, the Defendant issued a false certificate of hospitalization, stating the content of being hospitalized for two days, and received KRW 2,376,120 from the said insurance company on March 2, 2010.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the records: (i) Whether hospitalization is necessary means to determine the method of appropriate treatment depending on the patient’s specific circumstances; (ii) the degree of recovery for each patient after the surgery can vary; and (iii) it cannot be readily determined that there is no need for hospitalization after the surgery (or there are many patients who complained of extreme pain among patients who have undergone the surgery, and hospitalized). (ii) Generally, it means that the patient is under the observation and management of medical professionals while staying in the hospital for more than 6 hours according to the following provisions: (i) whether hospitalization is necessary or not; (ii) the medical records indicating the time of hospitalization and discharge; and (iii) the defendant cannot be readily determined that the defendant, who is the patient, was hospitalized at the hospital because of the lack of sufficient documentation or supervision, and (iv) the defendant could not be found to have been discharged from the hospital on the date of the surgery, by taking account of the following provisions:

C. Judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances, in addition to the above circumstances as stated by the court below, the decision of the court below that found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged is justified, and there is no erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.

1) Even according to the medical record submitted by Co-Defendant A in the trial, there is no indication of the time when the defendant was staying in the court, and it cannot be readily concluded that the time when the defendant was staying in the hospital is less than six hours.

2) Furthermore, even if the period of the Defendant’s stay in the hospital does not exceed six hours, the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s notice is the requirement for hospitalization. However, there is no evidence to deem that the victim’s insurance company absolutely takes the ‘six hours’ as an absolute standard in determining whether the victim’s hospitalization. ② there is no evidence to prove that the insurance sales employee explained the Defendant that he/she can receive the insurance money premised on the “inpatient” only when he/she was hospitalized and operated for at least six hours when explaining the insurance for lost medical expenses. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had been well aware of the contents of the above notice given by the Ministry of Health and Welfare or the insurance clauses included in the insurance policy. In light of the above, it cannot be ruled that the Defendant considered that he/she himself/herself satisfied the “one day of hospitalization” requirement in light of the content of the operation and treatment he/she received.

3) The Defendant was issued a certificate of hospitalization from Co-Defendant A, who was 1 Park Jong-il and received only the medical expenses for hospitalization, which can be received at the time of hospitalization from an interesting fire insurance company, and there was no “daily allowances for hospitalization” received according to the number of days of hospitalization.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Gindo,

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judges Yang Yang-soo