The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were not aware of the fact that the Defendant himself was a hepatitis B (hereinafter “each insurance contract of this case”) before entering into nine insurance contracts entered in the list of crimes in the attached Table of the judgment of the court below, such as post offices (hereinafter “each insurance company of this case”), and even though he was receiving a medical examination from a doctor to treat each disease listed in the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “each disease of this case”), the court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. (1) The deception as a requirement for a mistake of facts refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have a good faith and sincerity to be observed with each other in property transaction. The deception by omission refers to such passive acts means that a person subject to legal obligation to notify by law does not inform the other party of a certain fact with the knowledge that the other party has been involved in a mistake (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). If a person suffering from a specific disease knowingly, without notifying the insurance company of the duty to notify the terms and conditions stipulated by the insurance company, who knows that the insurance company provides for the duty to notify the disease, and then claims the insurance money on the grounds of the occurrence of the disease, the intent of deception or fraud in fraud may be recognized unless there are special circumstances.