Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won, and Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A knew that he issues a false diagnosis document at F Council members located in the Seo-gu Busan, and had his family members receive a false diagnosis document, and had the Defendant receive the insurance money such as diagnosis cost and hospitalization daily allowances.

On February 7, 2017, the Defendant filed an insurance claim under the name of G with G, on the ground that G was in excess of a bath, the Defendant had the F Council taken MP photographs from F Council members on the ground that G was in excess of a bath, issued a medical certificate under the name of “unexplosion” by a doctor H, and submitted the said medical certificate to D, etc. with the victim company, and filed a claim for pel examination and medical expenses in the name of G.

However, in fact, the defendant was well aware that the doctor H issued a osptic diagnosis at the time of taking images, and had G take the opI photographs for the purpose of insurance proceeds, and there was no actual G suffered from the shotum because the G exceeded the bath.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim D as the above, received KRW 800,000 from the victim for the C/I, J, and K for the sum of KRW 8,250,000 for the medical expenses and medical expenses as stated in attached Table 1 from around that time to February 28, 2017, as well as for the victim from around February 28, 2017.

B. On April 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) had his/her wife take MaI photographs from F Council members on the ground that he/she had his/her husband exceeded his/her bath; (b) issued a medical certificate under the name of “abstination of Y” by a doctor H; (c) submitted the medical certificate to the victim company D, etc.; and (d) filed a claim for a pel examination and medical expenses in the name of L.

However, in fact, the defendant was well aware that the medical doctor H only granted a egalitic diagnosis when taking a egalitic photo, and had L take a egalitic photo for the purpose of insurance proceeds, and there was no fact that L actually suffered a egalitic injury because L exceeded a bath.

The defendant.