Attorney C

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

On February 2, 2005, around September 2, 2007, the Defendant intentionally caused a traffic accident involving certain injuries to the victim Co., Ltd. and around September 2007, the Defendant had been willing to buy a high-priced insurance policy with the aim of receiving the insurance money.

Around September 30, 2009, the defendant did not own a motor vehicle, and does not own a normal driving, and it is necessary to listen to high-priced insurance because he did not frequently drive a long-distance.In spite of no fact, the defendant purchased a premium family security franchise insurance policy to the interest country life (hereinafter referred to as the "interest life") Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the interest country life") around 10 days, through a call license, and purchased the instant insurance policy by seeking insurance from the victim Samsung F&M (hereinafter referred to as the "Ssung F&M") about October 8, 2009.

The above two insurance contracts are 520,000 won monthly insurance premiums, and are not paid in full by each insurer, but paid in full. The defendant could have anticipated that he would be able to receive a reasonable amount of insurance money when a traffic accident occurred intentionally, and requested a siren company in advance to buy a self-employed insurance contract in order to cause a traffic accident intentionally. On October 12, 2009, the car of soflurt with E E in the Kimhae Airport Co., Ltd. was rentaled for a daily day.

On October 18, 2009, the Defendant directly driven a siren-lurd car at around 19:00 on or around October 18, 2009, and caused the injury of class 1 of disability (hereinafter “the injury of this case”) by causing a traffic accident falling down at a height of 5 meters without intentionally deviating from road and falling down a brading down at a height of 12 meters while driving a water-saving road at a speed of 1022 local water-related water-saving area in Yangsan-si at around 20:0 on the same day.

Since then, the Defendant intentionally committed a traffic accident but intended to receive insurance money by concealing such fact and causing a disguised accident; around December 10, 2009, the victim Samsung F&M; around January 13, 2010; the victim’s East Fire; the victim’s interesting life on April 23, 2010; and the victim’s interesting life on April 26, 2010; and the victim’s interesting life annuity, respectively. Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims as above, requested the victims to pay insurance money from the victim Samsung F&M; KRW 35,610,00; KRW 40,700,000; KRW 400,000; around February 28, 201; and KRW 25,87; and KRW 385,45,451; and the victim’s interest to receive money from the victim’s attempted crime; and the Defendant attempted to receive money from the victim’s interesting life under the pretext of fraud;

2. Determination:

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be acknowledged based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not more likely to have any reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to a prosecutor’s conviction, the same shall not apply.

Even if the defendant's assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it is doubtful that the defendant's guilt has been guilty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011).

B. Key issue of the instant case

(1) It is evident that the Defendant suffered the instant injury due to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, such as the traffic accident as indicated in the facts charged. However, whether the instant traffic accident occurred due to a sudden accident or whether the Defendant intentionally intended to receive a high amount of insurance money by causing a traffic accident is the key issue of the instant case.

(2) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: ① the Defendant had already purchased two insurance policies on September 30, 200 and Oct. 8, 2009 under the condition that the Defendant had already subscribed to two insurance policies; ② the Defendant intentionally received KRW 514,343,516 as indicated in the facts charged due to the instant traffic accident at ten (10) days before the date of the instant traffic accident; ② the Defendant’s insurance premium of KRW 525,160 per month at the time of the instant accident (50,00,000, KRW 131,700, KRW 1300, KRW 1300, KRW 131,700, KRW 213,460, KRW 460 on the right-hand side of the instant vehicle; ③ the Defendant’s accident of this case was likely to have done a traffic accident at the point of two G-type 200,000.

(3) However, if the Defendant intentionally purchased an insurance policy using Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchis Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchis Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchising Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchis Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchis Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchis Co., Ltd. of Samsung Franchis Co., Ltd. of Samsung Fran’s 201.

3. Conclusion. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 58