All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal to the effect that the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant AE, did not deception or did not have a criminal intent to defraudation, the lower court, along with the legal principles as to the requirements for hospitalized treatment and the criteria for judgment, determined that fraud is established against the whole insurance proceeds received in the event that the Defendants filed a claim for the payment of the insurance proceeds under hospitalized treatment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do6557, Jan. 12, 2006; 2007Do2134, May 11, 2007). The lower court’s joint Defendant A used the legal principles that fraud is established against the whole insurance proceeds received in the event that the Defendants were hospitalized and claimed for the payment of the insurance proceeds from the instant medical treatment even if they did not request hospitalization to the extent that they could receive the insurance proceeds from hospitalization at the hospital at the cost of the instant case. The Defendants, etc., who operated an oriental medical doctor as the head of the instant case, did not request hospitalization to the extent of the patient’s treatment.