Of them, the part against Defendant D, A, B, and C (the insurance premium against Defendant D is due to the payment of insurance premium in lieu of the insurance contract.

Therefore, among the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the part that the prosecutor did not appeal, that is, violation of the insurance law due to the payment of insurance premium for the defendant D insurance contract against the defendant A, aiding and abetting the violation of the insurance law due to the payment of the D insurance premium for the defendant A and B, and violation of the insurance law due to the payment of the D insurance premium for the defendant E with the defendant E, is excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court below

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles, the policyholders of the instant insurance did not intend to maintain the insurance contract while paying the premium by entering into the insurance contract normally.

Before August 2015, the fact that the insurance company was not aware of the fact that the insurance premium was paid by proxy, and there was no special circumstance to suspect that the insurance premium was paid by proxy.

Therefore, Defendant D could fully recognize the fact that Defendant A, B, and C deceivings the victim insurance companies to obtain fees and policies, and aiding and abetting the above fraud of Defendant D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant D of each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Defendants A, B, and C on the ground that the victim insurance company knew or could have known of the fact that the insurance premium was paid in person without any intention to conclude the insurance contract.

B. The lower court erred in sentencing against the Defendants.