All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, both the Defendants and C have found the hospital in fact, and the decision of hospitalization and the period of hospitalization is the doctor in charge. The Defendants and C did not have an excessive hospitalization, and they did not defraud the insurance money by deceiving the victims.

Based on the review results of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service lacking credibility, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants and C were excessively hospitalized, is erroneous by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for August and Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. “Hospitalization” refers to a patient’s treatment under the observation and management of medical professionals while staying in a hospital for more than 6 hours in accordance with the following provisions: (a) where continuous observation of medical professionals is required in relation to side effects or incidental effects of drugs which have low resistance ability to, or are administered; (b) where the management of drugs and drinking plants is needed; (c) where the patient’s pain and treatment are continuously needed; and (d) where the patient’s condition is in a situation where the patient is unable to cope with the pain or where the patient is in a danger of infection; and (e) where the patient stays in the hospital, the patient’s treatment is being provided; and (e) the patient’s treatment is being provided while staying in the hospital for more than 6 hours; (e) the determination of whether the patient was hospitalized based on the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment procedure; and (e) the patient’s actions should be made by taking into account the patient’s actions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Do4665, May 28, 2009).