1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that: (a) the vehicle of E, who was seated in the top head of the vehicle owned by the Defendant, and was in the signal signaled by the Defendant, immediately after the vehicle of E, was in contact with the rear criminal part of the said vehicle; (b) even though the shock degree caused by the instant accident was insufficient and there was no injury to the extent that the Defendant was hospitalized as a result of the instant accident; (c) the Defendant was under long-term hospitalization and outpatient treatment with the insurance company for the purpose of receiving treatment fees from the insurance company with the opportunity of the instant traffic accident; and (d) the insurance company of E was receiving treatment for a long time, and (e) the insurance company of E obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount by allowing the Defendant to pay KRW 2,421,68

In this regard, the Defendant actually sustained the injury of the Defendant, such as the king salt, etc. due to the instant accident, and the Defendant’s spagal spawal spawal spawal spawal spawal, which led to proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s injury and the instant accident, and without notifying

Even if so, this cannot be said to be a deception of fraud.

The lower court stated that the instant accident was a very minor accident that the other party who stopped after the Defendant’s vehicle was driven by balk and that the future is occurring, and that C who driven the Defendant’s vehicle was unaware of the contact with other vehicles at the time of the instant accident, as well as that the Defendant, who was next to the instant accident, had been in contact with the other vehicle. The Defendant had been in eight times or more during the instant accident, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol driving on November 23, 201, after the instant accident occurred, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol driving on December 2, 2011.