The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the crimes of fraud and perjury and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 20,000,000.

Therefore, before the defendant appealed and remanded, the court below rejected the defendant's allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to each crime of fraud, and dismissed the defendant's appeal without accepting the entire judgment of the court below.

In other words, the Defendant filed an appeal. The Supreme Court received the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the mistake of facts as to each fraud listed in the annexed Table Nos. 22, 27, 28, 30 through 32, 34 through 42, 46, and 65 among the facts charged in the instant case. The Defendant’s grounds of appeal on each fraud of the remaining parts are not accepted. The part which received the grounds of appeal and the remaining part of the crime of fraud and perjury are concurrent crimes listed in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment prior to remand was reversed and remanded on the ground that the first instance court rendered a single sentence against the Defendant.

B. The part rejected by the court of final appeal on the ground that the assertion in the grounds of final appeal is groundless and conclusive at the same time with the rendering of the judgment, and as such, the defendant cannot contest this part of the judgment that is remanded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6289, May 11, 2006) and the court that is remanded cannot make a decision contrary thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 22,27, 27, 28, 30 through 32, 34 through 42, 46, and 65 are limited to each of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1. Whether hospitalization is based on the definition of hospitalization in the insurance terms and conditions concluded between a patient and a private insurance company.