B, C’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

On July 31, 2014, the Defendant did not submit the appellate brief within the due date for submission of the appellate brief even when he was served with the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial records, and the appeal petition does not contain any indication of the grounds for appeal.

Even after examining records, there is no reason to reverse the judgment of the court below after ex officio investigation.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed by decision in accordance with Articles 361-4 (1) and 361-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant C's appeal and the prosecutor's appeal are rendered as follows, they are dismissed by judgment.

Defendant

C’s appeal and the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are unreasonable in light of the summary of the grounds of appeal. ① The lower court’s sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million is imposed on the Defendants B; Defendant C; Defendant D: imprisonment for six months; imprisonment for four months; probation for two years; probation, probation, and community service order 120 hours) against the Defendants.

② The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

Defendant

As to the assertion on unfair sentencing against C and the above defendant by the public prosecutor, the crime of this case was committed in collusion with the above defendants (including co-defendant A prior to the separation of pleadings) and the above defendant intentionally caused a traffic accident and received a total of KRW 46,930,730 from the victim Hyundai Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., but the victim suspected of the circumstances of the accident did not pay the insurance money, and thus, the crime was committed in an attempted attempt. In light of the content and motive of the crime, and the crime was committed systematically and systematically, the crime was not good; the defendant was more involved in the crime of this case; the degree of the participation; the defendant was more serious; the defendant was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months due to habitual fraud in 207, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million for fraud in 2010, which was disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, this is.