2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined that: (a) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, insurance fraud causes moral hazard hazard to the general public and economic losses to the good insurance subscribers; and (b) there is a very great harm and injury to them; (c) the Defendant, who is an accomplice, repeatedly participated in the crime of this case by the Defendant’s co-defendant; (d) the total amount of damage was 27 million won; (e) the Defendant did not agree with the victimized Company; and (e) the Defendant appears to have led the Defendant to the crime of this case; and (e) the Defendant has no economic benefits; and (e) the Defendant has no motive or motive to punish the Defendant; and (e) details and circumstances leading the Defendant to the crime of this case after considering the record.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.