A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles ) The occurrence of an accident caused by the destruction of the body of the first vehicle while Defendant A was operating bents (hereinafter “first vehicle”) by focusing on the sents of the road, which was actually damaged by the vehicle. Thus, Defendant A did not engage in the receipt of false accident. Defendant A did not participate in the insurance company’s claim after the said accident.

(hereinafter referred to as “the Chapter 1”) Defendant A shall be deemed to be a breadth A, a haloga (hereinafter referred to as “second vehicle”).

(1) The insured depository institution did not participate in the claims (hereinafter referred to as “section 2”).

(C) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of facts that found Defendant A guilty of attempted fraud related to the first and second vehicles related to Defendant A.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of community service order, two hundred hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, when the appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance judgment and ex post facto determine the existence of any objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the course of the trial, notwithstanding the absence of any new disclosure of the objective reason, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the fact-finding is obviously unreasonable due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, without such exceptional circumstance, the determination of the first instance court’s fact-finding should not be reversed without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Moreover, the method of evaluating the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is an essential difference between the first instance court and the appellate court.