However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is between the defendant and B.

On October 29, 2018, around 04:32, 2018, the Defendant, while driving the e-sports vehicle owned D on the front side of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, received the front side of the said e-mail vehicle and the G dump vehicle operated by F Co., Ltd., Ltd., and suggested that the Defendant received the above dump vehicle and received the above dump vehicle, and the Defendant agreed to this proposal.

As such, B reported to the staff in charge of the victim’s H insurance company’s accident receipt at the same place on the same day at around 06:14, that “in the Republic of Korea, dump vehicles were brought back, and E bsz vehicles were received.”

However, the accident was caused by the dump vehicle while the above dump vehicle was in operation on the front, so the victim was not an accident to pay insurance money.

Therefore, the Defendant, in collusion with B, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 17 million from the victim as the unrepair cost under D’s name to the I bank account in the name of business bank around November 7, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A suspect interrogation protocol concerning B by the prosecution;

1. Statement to J police officers;

1. Each certificate, each operating log, each accident scene photograph, and a recording book;

1. Details of the payment of insurance proceeds, accident receipt and contract list, letters of payment of automobile insurance proceeds, requests for and written consents to automobile insurance proceeds, current status of the payment of insurance proceeds, application of statutes on vehicle photographs;

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 Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of this case with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is not only causing damage to the relevant insurance company, but also causing damage to the entire insurance organization consisting of policyholders and insured workers of the relevant insurance, thereby promoting moral hazard.