2. However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant confessions all of the instant crimes and reflects the depth of the Defendant; (b) the amount of defraudation is not so significant; (c) the Defendant did not have any same criminal record; (d) while the instant crime is committed by deceiving the insurance proceeds from the victimized insurance company by pretending the insurance accidents by means of a method such as accepting false accidents with accomplices or intentionally causing traffic accidents; (e) the nature of the crime is extremely poor in light of the circumstances of the crime; (e) the details of the crime and the method of the commission of the crime; (b) the Defendants are not agreed with the victim; (c) the criminal punishment and equity with the criminal punishment that the accomplices received; and (d) other various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments,

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, among the summary of the court below's evidence, "each police protocol against D and K" is clear that it is a clerical error in each police interrogation protocol against D and K, and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.