The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the misunderstanding of legal principle) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant attempted to acquire each insurance money from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) and attempted to acquire it is recognized.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and B, in the facts charged, are married with the husband and wife, who is suspected of having been diagnosed as a disease at the hospital B, and was willing to receive the insurance money in the event that B dies of a disease after having taken out the insurance policy.

1. On September 8, 2015, the Defendant and B who attempted to commit fraud against C is the Defendant and B’s residence in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City D and E, the Defendant as the contractor and the beneficiary, and the insurance contract is concluded with B as the insured. On September 5, 2015, the insured was recommended by the F Hospital G to be “humpted to undergo an inspection as it is suspected of having verified severe emerculation in the health examination,” while the insured was urged by the F Hospital G to be “humpted to undergo an inspection due to having been hospitalized due to suspected of having undergone a serious emerculation in the health examination,” in the form of “Obligation to notify before the contract” in the letter of subscription, “I will not undergo a diagnosis or examination of disease confirmation, diagnosis of disease, treatment, hospitalization, surgery, medication,” by preparing a false subscription form stating “no” in the column of questioning that he/she had undergone medical practice, such as medication,” and received approval from H.

On October 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the J Hospital located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, died of the insured Party B as an acute brudal leukosis; (b) around December 26, 2016, the Defendant attempted to obtain economic benefits equivalent to the same amount by preparing and submitting a written claim for requesting payment of KRW 100 million of the death benefit of illness death to C; (c) however, C refused payment due to breach of duty of disclosure and failed to achieve such intent.

2. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant and B who attempted to commit fraud to K are either the Defendant and B’s dwelling in the foregoing Defendant and B as the contractor and the beneficiary, and B as the insured.