The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) is that the Defendant subscribed to about 7 months a double insurance product guaranteed by the Defendant; the fact that the Defendant moved to the hospital and was hospitalized for a long time despite the occurrence of any minor accident that occurred at least 4 times thereafter; the fact that C appears to have not received any particular treatment for injury to the medical record; and that C was involved in the process of purchasing the insurance by the Defendant, and introduced the hospital; however, a majority of other persons who introduced the insurance and hospital was pronounced guilty of insurance fraud; therefore, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s hospitalization as normal hospitalization; and that the Defendant’s claim for insurance proceeds based on the medical certificate written as a result of the diagnosis that was drafted to the extent that such hospitalization and actual impairment were lower than the extent of

It is reasonable to view it.

2. As to the fraud regarding the insurance proceeds by false or exaggerated hospitalization, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant was actually involved in the accident; (b) the injury was concentrated on the part of the Defendant, and (c) the Defendant had repeated hospitalization and discharge for a considerable period of time; (b) it appears that there were causes, such as surgery fladism, accompanying damage, and the need for a compromise due to spaculism; (c) whether or not the patient was hospitalized or the period of hospitalization was basically determined by the medical doctor; (d) the medical doctor who provided the Defendant had been hospitalized for a long period of time beyond the need for a long period of time, or had the Defendant

It is difficult to conclude that the monthly insurance premium to be borne by the defendant is excessive in light of the defendant's occupation, income, and asset level.

It is difficult to see the fact that the defendant was sent out several times during the period of hospitalization, but appears to have been used to undergo an examination at another hospital, and other peculiar matters are not discovered, and 5 the defendant acquired by fraud.

Among the facts charged, the operation, hospital treatment, and the compensation for large goods are the names of charges charged.