beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On October 5, 199, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant subscribed to F, who is the husband of the school life insurance contract, through L, which was known to Pyeongtaek-si, to the insured through L, which is the husband of the school life insurance, with his family love insurance, and entered into the contract with F, who is the husband of the family. In the personal insurance contract, the Defendant is asked about the physical space “health condition” in the physical space of “health condition” in the written application for the personal insurance contract, and the question about “Isnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnsnnsnsnnsnnsnsnnsnsnsnsnnsnsnnsnsnsnnsnssnh by urology during the latest five years.” However, from June 23, 199 to June 23, 199.
7. Around February 2, 200, the defendant was hospitalized at a mutual infinite hospital for about 10 days, but the defendant did not notify the fact that he was hospitalized as a urine disease with knowledge that he was refused to subscribe for the insurance if he was informed of the fact that he was suffering from urine disease, thereby deceiving the victim's infinite life insurance company and deceiving the victim infinite life insurance and being exempted from the exemption period for which the insurance company cannot be subjected to unilateral cancellation or refusal to pay the insurance money on the ground of the violation of the duty of disclosure. The same year from June 24, 2004
7. The same year after receiving hospitalized treatment at a H hospital located in Pyeongtaek-si G for a period of 31 days from the 24th day to the date on which he/she was hospitalized due to urology urology, etc
8. From August 11, 2008 to June 21, 2013, a sum of KRW 101,929,774 as insurance money was received from the victim through 12 times in total from August 11, 2008 to June 21, 2013, including the receipt of insurance money of KRW 284,00,000 from the victim.
2. The judgment-based policyholder concluded a life insurance contract with an insurer in violation of the duty of disclosure under the Commercial Act, but the insurance money is not paid only by the conclusion of the insurance contract, but only by the occurrence of an accident. Therefore, the insurance contract was concluded in violation of the duty of disclosure