2. The defendants recognized all the crimes of this case and opposed to them, and all agreed terms with the damaged companies are favorable to the defendants.

However, the crime of this case is likely to cause damage to the company's property by obtaining insurance proceeds from the damaged company in advance after the defendants conspired with intent in advance, thereby impairing the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, and ultimately causing damage to the majority of good subscribers, and thus, there is a high possibility of social criticism. Although Defendant A has little profits from the crime of this case, since it is impossible for Defendant A to commit the insurance fraud of this case without the defendant A's active desire, it is not possible to hold Defendant A liable for severe liability corresponding thereto. Furthermore, Defendant A committed the crime of this case again even though he had the record of criminal punishment of a fine for the same crime of 2013. Defendant B appears to have used some of the amount of the money acquired through deception as gambling fund, and Defendant B appears to have used it as a part of the amount of money acquired, and there is no reason to view the above Defendants' age, character, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, records and circumstances before and after the crime of this case.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.