사기등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the defendants (the defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of social service, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, six months of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, eight hours of social service, and two million won of fine in case of defendant D) are too uneasable and unfair.
2. The crime of this case is a so-called "insurance fraud" crime that the Defendants intentionally caused a traffic accident or who pretended to have a traffic accident and acquired insurance proceeds from the relevant insurance company under the name of medical expenses, etc. by reporting to the insurance company as if the Defendants had suffered injury, and the crime of this case is planned and sealed, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good. Defendant A led the crime of this case, and the rest of the Defendants actively participated in the crime of this case. In light of the above, the Defendants should be punished strictly.
However, Defendant A, B, and D did not have any history of being punished for the same crime or of being sentenced to a fine exceeding the fine. Defendant A agreed to pay KRW 5 million to the victim Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and pay the amount of damage in installments each month. Defendant B paid KRW 2,829,340,000 to the victim Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and paid KRW 2,920,00 to the victim Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and KRW 2,920,00 each; Defendant C and D took part in the instant crime only once; Defendant D did not have any profit from the actual acquisition of the instant crime; Defendant D did not repeat the instant crime while the Defendants divided their mind in depth; and all other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case. In full view of these circumstances, the lower court’s sentence is unreasonable.
3. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.