beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Facts charged;
A. On June 19, 2008, when the Defendant received surgery or hospitalized treatment due to a disease, disaster, etc. through TV home shopping advertising advertisement, the Defendant subscribed to the KB damage insurance (State) insurance contract that pays insurance money under the pretext of operating expenses, hospitalization expenses, etc. (free).
In this regard, the defendant purchased the above insurance products, and he received two times the hospitalized treatment due to the disease related to 28 days in the border transit, such as light spine, sloping fladation, etc. at the Kimhae Hospital from June 12, 2007 to July 9, 2007, and the fact that he received 16 days’ hospitalized treatment due to the disease in the above food-based Kimhae D Hospital from February 25, 2008 to March 11, 2008, was not notified to the above insurance company.
Then, from August 26, 2009 to September 7, 2009, the Defendant received 650,000 won from the post office account (F) in the name of the Defendant on April 14, 2010 and acquired 6,853,304 won in total on 10 occasions, such as (A) net 1 to 4,6, and 11 in the following manner, from August 26, 2009 to around September 7, 2009.
B. After purchasing an insurance product by the foregoing method, the Defendant received medical treatment from the “E member’s “in the country” from June 17, 2011 to June 30, 2011, such as the impairment of warning and warning signboards,” which was located in G in G during Kimhae-si from June 17, 2011, and subsequently claimed insurance proceeds from the insurance company on August 3, 2011. However, the Defendant attempted to confirm the fact at the insurance company, but failed to receive insurance proceeds by cancelling the receipt (e.g., the number of crimes Nos. 5). 2 of the attached Table 5), and the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial, and the conviction is true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge.