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

On April 14, 2018, the Defendant subscribed to the Korea Automobile Comprehensive Insurance Co., Ltd. with respect to the said automobiles, including the Plaintiff and C2 limited driving with respect to which a special agreement was entered.

On February 20, 2019, the Defendant: (a) called the call center of the victim company; and (b) in fact, the Defendant received an insurance accident by fraud that caused the damage of a vehicle due to the occurrence of a traffic accident by a person who was not a party to the driver’s limited-term special agreement while driving the said vehicle; (c) on February 18, 2019, by concerns that he/she would not receive compensation for the instant traffic accident; and (d) around February 22:00, 2019, the Defendant received the insurance accident by fraudulent means that the vehicle was destroyed while driving the said BM car at the two-lane BM car at the Jeonnam-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

As above, the Defendant deceivings employees in charge of paying insurance proceeds of the victim company, and caused the victim company to transfer KRW 5,720,000 to the F Enterprise Bank Account (G), the repair cost of KRW 8,617,90 to the HI Bank Account (J) on April 18, 2019, and acquired KRW 14,337,90 in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each report of internal investigation (No. 47 and 49) with K on the written protocol of statement of the police with K, written evidence of vehicle completion, automobile insurance subscription certificate (B), recording investigation report (the result of execution of a warrant of search and seizure inspection, the suspect's telephone details, and the details of credit card use), and each report (No. 47 and 49) (Attachment of a list of evidence to be submitted by mail, attachment of a motion picture storage device to be submitted by mail, attachment of a photograph photograph of E, the statement of the respondent's telephone call, and confirmation of the base station for sending (defence) (the defendant and his defense counsel)

It is true that the accident has been paid by driving the vehicle, and accordingly, it is argued that there has been no deception of the victim with the intention of deceiving the victim, since the insurance insurance was received for the accident.

However, it is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.