The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendants on the charges of this case solely on the ground that the Defendants did not include the details of the crimes in the final judgment of G Hospital E or that the contents of the non-prosecution decision with respect to E do not coincide with those of the final judgment, despite being found guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendants were patients suffering from medical treatment at the G Hospital located in the Hanam-si, the Hamnam-si operated by E.

Patients who live in a hospital or clinic shall undergo hospitalized treatment where patients who live in the hospital or clinic are very low in resistance to the disease, or need continuous observation by medical professionals, but they are unable to cope with the pain.

However, the G Hospital issued a false diagnosis and a false certificate of entrance and discharge to the patients as if they were treated at normal times, even though patients were not hospitalized at all after undergoing the procedure of hospitalization in the form, or they were frequently staying out of the country without permission.

When the Defendants were hospitalized at a hospital or clinic, they knew that hospital expenses, hospitalization expenses, etc. were paid to the insurance company in full from the insurance company, and knew that they were falsely hospitalized at the above G hospital and received a medical certificate and a written confirmation of entrance and discharge from the insurance company.

Defendant

A Defendant A subscribed to LIG damage insurance without dividends through an influence insurance solicitor before being hospitalized in the above G Hospital.

Defendant

A, for 15 days from February 22, 2010 to March 8, 2010, he/she was hospitalized in the G Hospital due to catum salt, etc., but in fact, he/she was hospitalized for 70,000 days and received normal medical treatment and received normal medical treatment during the remainder of the period.

Nevertheless, Defendant A prepared a patient set as if he was hospitalized in the above G Hospital and gave medical treatment.