2. Determination

A. All of the instant crimes against Defendant B are recognized and contradictory to each of the instant crimes, and the damage was partly recovered at the investigation stage against the victim company of the instant insurance fraud crime, and the remainder of the damage appears to be able to be recovered through the compensation order by the lower court, and the crime of joint conflict against the victim R participated by the Defendant is committed attempted, and the Defendant’s wife and her age must support the victim’s children. Such circumstances may be considered for the Defendant.

However, the number of the insurance frauds committed by the Defendant, or the amount of damage, was during the period of repeated crime at the time of committing the insurance frauds in this case, and the crime of attempted co-concepts in this case was committed by inducing the victim to have sexual intercourse with the female of the role of "breen" in the role of "breen" which the Defendant wnnd and threatened the victim as if the victim had rape, and thereby inducing the victim to withdraw money and valuables is not sufficient to commit the crime. In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendant's age, character and behavior, career, environment, the background and result of the crime in this case, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. There are extenuating circumstances for Defendant C to recognize and oppose all the crimes of mutual conflict and attempted mutual conflict between the two crimes, and the fact that the crime of mutual conflict with the victim R is committed against the attempted crimes, etc.

However, each crime committed by the defendant is a sexual relationship with the female of the defendant's role in the "brenick" role, through a thorough prior plan and systematic allocation of roles.