The Defendant, as the instant case, was first known to the Defendant, and as D, is the motive for the University one year prior to the University, E, and F.

On April 16, 2018, the Defendant, along with D, E, and F, driven a different siren vehicle from C, B, and B, in the first floor of the “Gtel in Suwon-gu, Busan on Apr. 16, 2018, and concealed B, after driving a different siren vehicle from C, B, and conspired to receive the agreed amount from the insurance company, and divided C.

Therefore, at around 19:40 on April 16, 2018, when the defendant operates the I-E, F, and D on the road in front of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City H, it was shocked by B by operating the J-E-E-E-E (K ownership) and intentionally driving by the defendant.

Although personal damage was not caused by this accident, it was received by deceiving Macar Mutual Aid Association, the insurance company of B vehicle B, as if the personal damage had occurred due to the traffic accident, and the Defendant received from the relevant insurance company the amount of KRW 1,607,430, the Defendant received the amount of KRW 1,610,140, KRW 1,610, KRW 140, KRW 1,667,620, KRW 1,667, KRW 620, and KRW 1,54,890, and KRW 6,430,080.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol for B, D, E, F, and C;

1. On April 16, 2018, around 19:40 on April 16, 2018, table of the payment of insurance proceeds for the construction of a road accident in front of the Southern-gu H, the current status-A of the determination of mutual aid funds, the place of receipt of the accident, an accident-oriented photograph, a statement of agreed-

1. Article 8 of the relevant Act on Criminal Facts, Article 8 of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Selection of fines;

1. Penalty of one million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that even though the Defendant was driving a vehicle, it is difficult to view that the degree of participation is significant in light of the background leading up to being in charge of driving and the amount of fraud, and that the Defendant did not have any criminal history as a student from the beginning of the 20th century and agreed with the victim.