The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant merely received insurance money after receiving hospitalized treatment as there is a need to receive hospitalized treatment due to a traffic accident.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a deception, and the defendant did not have the intention to acquire it by deception.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court: (a) committed long-term hospitalization beyond the scope, even though there is no need for hospital treatment or is much shorter time than the actual hospitalization period; and (b) acquired it by deceiving the Defendant, claiming an excessive large amount of insurance money corresponding to

The defendant's assertion is rejected in light of the proper reasoning.

The reasoning of the judgment below is closely examined by comparing the reasoning of the judgment below with records, and even though it can easily be seen that the hospitalization is not a normal type of hospital even in light of the operational form of the E hospital as explained by the court below, even though the defendant was hospitalized in the hospital for 28 days at the time of the first hospitalization, it is difficult to view that the defendant was hospitalized for treatment for a period corresponding to the actual symptoms, and according to communications data on the mobile phone (L) which the defendant stated that he used by the police, the above mobile phone was used in the area outside the hospital during the second hospitalization period of the defendant's three hospitalization period (the defendant presented the above communication data by the prosecutor at the prosecution, and used the above mobile phone jointly with the identification of the defendant.

At the same time, the statement of the police is reversed, and the communication data at the night is used by the wife.