2...

Defendant

B The operator of Pyeongtaek-si F's "G" repair point, Defendant C is a maintenance company of the above repair point, Defendant C is a person related to Defendant C and a person related to post-ship.

Defendant

A around October 2016, when HMW S100 R Rotoa was partially damaged due to the operation of HMW S100 R Rotoa on the road near Pyeongtaek-si located in Pyeongtaek-si, and around the course, around December 22, 2016, Defendant C was found to have a part of the above motoa, which was damaged by the above motoa owned by Defendant C, which was the same kind of motob, and the parts damaged by the motoba, which were the same type of mototoba, Defendant C and Defendant B were able to claim for the repair cost of traffic accident, and Defendant C and Defendant B proposed the payment of the cost of traffic accident insurance to Defendant C and Defendant B (hereinafter “victim C”) who purchased the motoba by pretending the motob of Defendant B and caused the accident. Defendant C and Defendant B consented to the insurance fraud by gathering it.

Although the Defendants conspired and conspired on December 25, 2016, the fact that the excavation bridge near the sloping-Eup of Pyeongtaek-si was in danger of traffic accident, the Defendants did not receive false accident that “HMW S100 RR driving on the sloping bridge near the sloping distance during the driving of HMW S100 RR,” Defendant B did not submit a false accident to the victim company, and Defendant B did not receive an accident that “IMW S100 RR driving on the sloping bridge near the sloping distance during the driving of HW S100 RM, but did not receive an accident in advance,” Defendant B did not receive an accident under the pretext of having attempted to receive an accident from around 16:00 on December 25, 2017.