[Defendant A] 1.

A. Error 1) Defendants merely receive insurance money by traffic accident, and there is no fact that they deceiving the victim insurance company as stated in the judgment of the court below (However, Defendant B does not dispute only paragraph (8) of the facts charged against Defendant A), among the facts charged against Defendant A by the prosecutor, the fraud on November 21, 2010; the fraud on July 10, 2010 among the facts charged against Defendant C; the fraud on March 19, 2013; the fraud on June 17, 2013 among the facts charged against Defendant E; the fraud on November 21, 2010 among the facts charged against Defendant E; and the fraud on November 21, 2010 among the facts charged against Defendant F, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, each of the Defendants can be fully recognized.

B. Unfair sentencing 1) The lower court’s each sentence against the Defendants is so unreasonable that each sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s each sentence against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (the remaining part of the judgment of the court below excluding the acquittal part against Defendant C) is examined as ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal against the Defendants.

In the trial, the prosecutor 3-A of the facts charged against the Defendants.

Inasmuch as paragraphs (4) and (6)-A, (b), (8), (10), (11), and (12) of this Act apply for the alteration of indictment in exchange, and this Court changed the subject of adjudication by granting permission, the remainder of the judgment of the court below, except for the acquittal portion against Defendant C, cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts regarding this part are still subject to the judgment of this court. Thus, the judgment of the court below is examined as follows.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court for each fraud as stated in Paragraph 3 of the facts of the crime as stated in the lower judgment, in particular, the Defendants 1).