A. Defendant C did not have conspired to commit the instant crime by the co-defendant B and A.

Defendant

C is only a part of the promotional log for insurance products at the request of co-defendant B, who is a friendly co-defendant, or a part of it at the place of insurance business event.

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants against each sentence (Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C: 10 months of imprisonment, and Defendant C: fine of KRW 5 million) in the first instance of sentencing (the Defendants and the Prosecutor) is deemed unfair because the Defendants’ grounds for appeal are too large, and the gist of the reasons for appeal by the Prosecutor is too small and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that Defendant C conspired with the co-defendant B and A to commit the instant crime is sufficiently recognized.

First, at the court of first instance, I, which was insured by the Defendant’s instant crime, reported the insurance solicitation advertisement in the Niber car page, and made telephone conversations with Defendant C, and made an insurance contract with Defendant C by providing KRW 100,000 in return for lending the name of the insurance company call only. After that three months, I made a statement to the effect that “if maintaining the insurance contract only for the three months, I paid KRW 80,000 as an allowance.” As such, there is no reasonable motive for the content of the statement, and there is credibility in line with other circumstances that are seen below.

Second, in the court of first instance, F and M worked for the victim G corporation, an insurance agency, showed Defendant C at the above company office several times, and is known to the public Defendant B and A as an employee of the business for the damaged company, and the subsequent allowances were all deposited into the account of the PP, the denial of the joint Defendant C.

The statements are consistent with the contents of the statements.