A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, who has purchased multiple insurance policies, did not discharge the patient even though it is possible to receive the medical treatment, and did not frequently move the hospital from time to time and rehospitalize the hospital for an unnecessary long time, with a view to receiving insurance money, such as daily allowances for hospitalization, from each insurance company.

On April 23, 2009, the Defendant was hospitalized in the Republic of Korea on the ground of “the left-hand slot stimulism stimulshosis” from the members of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Council on April 23, 2009, and received KRW 45,902,305,05,000 from the victims by the same method during the period from May 29, 2009 to April 5, 201, for the purpose of receiving the insurance money on the ground of being hospitalized in the post office of the victim on May 29, 2009, by claiming the insurance money from the victim on the ground of being hospitalized to the post office of the victim on May 29, 2009.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Detailed descriptions of the termination and damage evaluation report (accident 14, 2009), termination and damage evaluation report (accident 25, 2009);

1. Statement of the result of analysis of information on suspicion of insurance fraud;

1. Descriptions of the table of diagnosis and treatment (E hospital);

1. A statement in the certificate of medical treatment (14 days for the proper number of hospitalization);

1. Descriptions of a medical certificate and written confirmation of operation;

1. Details on the health insurance benefits and medical care benefits;

1. Detailed description of a set;

1. Statement of review opinion;

1. Detailed description of each claim;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion on the specifications of tea by hospital

1. Determination of the Defendant’s admission of the Defendant’s assertion is a doctor who directly treated the Defendant, and both the Defendant’s hospitalization was conducted under the judgment of the doctor.

Since the defendant was not hospitalized by false or exaggerated hospitalization, the defendant did not deceiving the victims.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence held in the judgment, the Defendant enticed the victims by false or exaggerated hospitalization for the following reasons.