2. The lower court determined that considering the following facts: (a) considering the fact that the Defendant, together with his accomplice, was fired for the purpose of receiving large amount of insurance money and attempted to receive insurance money, the nature of the crime of this case is not good; and (b) there was no possibility of criticism on the crime of this case; (c) the Defendant led to the crime of this case, such as first proposing to commit the crime of this case and attaching direct fire, etc.; (d) the Defendant had already intentionally caused an insurance accident at least three times before committing the crime of this case, acquired large amount of insurance money; and (e) he again committed the fire crime of this case again within five days after preparing payment forms of insurance company, taking into account the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of this case; (e) the amount of damage paid by the Defendant out of the amount acquired through the automobile insurance fraud of this case was merely small amount of money paid to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s motive to commit the crime of this case and the Defendant’s motive to commit the crime of this case, to the extent that the Defendant would not have committed the crime of fire damage.

The defendant paid 33,300,000 won to the victim of the automobile insurance fraud when it comes to the first instance.