beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of each defendant's case (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment;
Reasons
1. The court below rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Thus, the part dismissing the application for compensation order is immediately determined and excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) In light of the results of the AD’s medical advisory conference that the Defendants need to be hospitalized in this part of the judgment of the court below, and the record of hospitalization of the Defendants before and after the hospitalization of each part of the case, and in particular, as to the part hospitalized in other hospitals before and after the hospitalization of each part of the case, fraud is recognized. In full view of the fact that the Defendants paid excessive insurance premiums compared to the financial status and maintained several insurance contracts, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges. 2) In short, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, and thereby finding the Defendants not guilty. 2) The court below’s each sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment, and ten months of imprisonment) sentenced to the Defendants.
B. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts had subscribed to insurance and paid insurance premiums within the scope of economic ability, and there was no long-term hospitalized treatment for a hospital which is easy to be hospitalized, or for the long-term hospitalized treatment as long as necessary. In addition, in relation to whether the Defendants were hospitalized in excess of the reasonable number of hospitalization days, some of the different parts of the review results of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, V Association, and AD, which were sent to the Defendants, were unilaterally accepted the result of the Medical Advisory Consultative Council, which was sent to the Defendants disadvantageous to the Defendants, and sentenced the Defendants guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting