2. The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected; (b) the victims do not want the Defendant’s punishment by agreement with the Defendant’s accomplice; (c) the instant crime was committed without any particular power; and (d) the crime of embezzlement on duty established on February 18, 2017 and the crime of embezzlement after Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes; and (e) it is necessary to determine punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, insurance fraud causes moral hazard to the general public in society, causes economic losses to the good insurance subscribers, and thus requires severe punishment, and the defendant committed the crime in this case in order to raise gambling funds, not only the crime in question but also the principal role in the co-offenders by utilizing the knowledge and experience of insurance companies' employees, and thereby play a key role in the crime (the same applies to the above circumstances, even though the defendant led and planned the crime in this case as argued by himself) among the co-offenders, and taking into account various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and character environment, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not unreasonable for the court below's punishment against the defendant to be too excessive.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.