The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below acquitted the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant had received hospitalized treatment during the above period despite the absence of hospitalized treatment from Jan. 12, 2012 to Feb. 1, 2012 or there was no need to receive hospitalized treatment, by deceiving the insurance company that caused the victim and deceiving him/her of money, on the ground that the court below acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court determined that: (a) according to the details of the Defendant’s mobile phone use, the Defendant mainly appears to have been a member of E-do at least from January 12, 2012 to January 27, 2012; (b) each of the instant insurance contracts was concluded individually on the part of the Defendant’s guardian or juvenile season according to the Defendant’s business needs; (c) the Defendant himself appears to have not been well aware of each of the instant insurance contracts; (d) the instant hospital expenses individually visited the E-ray and received necessary documents for the claim for insurance proceeds; (d) the Defendant appears to have not participated in the process of claiming the insurance proceeds and receiving the insurance proceeds; and (d) the Defendant appears to have been aware of the period of hospitalization under the certificate of hospitalization on the admission and discharge; and (d) the Defendant appears to have failed to recognize the period of hospitalization on the above documents, even if the Defendant did not actually have been hospitalized on the part of the insurance fraud period from January 12, 2012 to December 12.

or the defendant committed an act of deception against the insurance company.

Since the defendant cannot be deemed to have received insurance money, the defendant was acquitted.

B. According to the records of the party deliberation, I, i.e., working at the E-Korean Council member at that time.