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

1. In general traffic accidents, the Defendant: (a) in accordance with the vehicle repair estimate, the vehicle insurer paid a large amount of transportation cost according to the vehicle repair cost specification; (b) in the case of traffic accidents involving high-class external vehicles, it is difficult to predict the accurate repair cost due to the construction of parts; and (c) as long as the repair period has expired, the cost of leasing high-class external vehicles of the same kind during the repair period is increased; and (d) in order to reduce the cost of dealing with the accident, the insurance company becomes aware of the fact that it intends to promptly complete the case by directly paying the fixed amount of cash (hereinafter “unclaimed repair cost”) to the person holding the external vehicles and paying the fixed amount of the cost of dealing with the accident.

Accordingly, the Defendant received the unrepairing cost by issuing a more exaggerated estimate of the repair cost on a vehicle through an accident, or received a small estimate of the repair cost from the service center that repaired the said vehicle, and used it to obtain money from the victim insurance company by receiving the unrepair cost from the insurance company.

On January 9, 2013, the Defendant lent DMW Z4 motor vehicles leased by the Defendant to E, but around January 9, 2013, E passed through the page of the road in front of the “G” located in the Namdong-gu Incheon, Incheon, and led to a defect in the lower part of the vehicle.

Accordingly, around January 18, 2013, the Defendant received an insurance accident with the victim Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and submitted a written estimate equivalent to KRW 18,470,000 as if the part not requiring repair was damaged by the said accident to the said victim, and submitted it to the said victim. The Defendant received KRW 8,00,000 from the victim who believed it as true as repair cost around January 23, 2013 as the non-repair cost, and from around that time until September 12, 2014, attached Table 1 is included.