The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's disease, which is a disease of the defendant, was hospitalized as a serious disease at risk of life if neglected, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was no need for hospitalized treatment due to the defendant's outing during the period of hospitalization. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The determination refers to the treatment under the observation and management of medical professionals while staying in a hospital for more than 6 hours according to the following provisions: in a case where continuous observation of medical professionals is necessary with respect to side effects or incidental effects of drugs which are low in resistance to, or administered by, the disease; in a case where the management of drugs and drinking foods is needed, it is necessary to continuously implement the medication and drinking, and thus, the patient’s pain is more inconvenience in treatment; in a case where the patient’s condition is in a situation where the patient is unable to cope with the pain or where the patient’s risk of infection exists; and in a case where the patient stays in a hospital for more than 6 hours, the patient’s treatment cannot be determined based on the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment procedure; and the patient’s actions cannot be determined based on the patient’s stay in the hospital room; in a case where the patient’s symptoms, diagnosis and treatment procedure are not the substance of the treatment; or where the patient’s treatment constitutes a long-term hospitalization beyond the need for treatment, the insurance company’s act of deception by asserting that the period constitutes a fraudulent agreement.

Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4665 Decided May 28, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do291 Decided June 15, 2007