If dump truck insurance fraud in the instant case did not inform or inform the Defendant of Samsung fire, watched view, citizen newspaper, etc., and H did not request additional value added to the repair cost, and the Defendant did not refuse to deliver the instant dump truck. On February 2014, the Defendant first presented a statement that the Defendant’s negligence ratio was 40%, and there was no reason to commit insurance fraud in order to reduce the repair cost burden, E was aware of the method of withdrawing repair cost, and without any prior advance statement with H, demanded the Defendant to present a estimate of repair cost (No. 1) around the end of November 2013, 201, and the Defendant did not demand the Defendant to accept the said estimate. However, the Defendant did not appear to have any co-offender with H to the extent that it would have been obviously 1,500,000 won.

I think, according to the fact that the defendant asserted as if he had recruited insurance fraud with H, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted to the same effect as the above facts, and the lower court consistently consented to the Defendant’s infusing repair costs, although there are different points in some statements by E and H, etc.

The fact that E makes a statement, there is no reason to allow the defendant to bear the repair cost by unfixing the repair cost, regardless of the defendant who is the owner of the vehicle.