The guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B and C shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant .

A. The prosecutor (not guilty part against Defendant A) found the Defendant not guilty of the fraud listed in the annexed Table 1 and 2, but considering the circumstances such as the traffic accident is the same type, the traffic accident is similar to that of the crime committed, the Defendant A received hospitalized treatment at one Council member after the traffic accident, etc., the Defendant A may be fully convicted of this part of the crime of fraud. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant A was acquitted of the above fraud. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant A was guilty of the above fraud.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution in June, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, in full view of the facts indicated in its reasoning, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, which led to a minor collision with the Defendant A, was insufficient to recognize that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. The instant crime of determining unfair sentencing by either party is an insurance fraud that obtained unjust benefits by abusing the insurance system, which leads to the outcome of transferring the damage to a large number of subscribers.