1. A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above defendants 1 and 2 conspired with the above defendant 1 and 2 to find out the unclaimed car of the non-indicted 1 which operated beyond the central line on August 16, 200, and can stop on the road, but the non-indicted 1 changed the course of the above non-indicted 3 to the front part of the above non-indicted 1 driving vehicle, and the above defendants were admitted to the above non-indicted 8 driver's accident insurance company's front part of the above non-indicted 3 driver's accident insurance and were charged with the above part of the non-indicted 8 driver's accident insurance on the ground that the above defendants were admitted to the above non-indicted 2's front part of the non-indicted 3 driver's accident insurance company and the above defendants were admitted to the non-indicted 1's front part of the non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3 driver's vehicle accident insurance company's front part of the above non-indicted 1 driving vehicle.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts due to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations or the violation of the rules of evidence.

B. The court below accepted the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance that the above defendant intentionally induced the crime related to the traffic accident as of August 16, 200 and December 23, 200, in the column of "criminal facts and summary of evidence of the judgment", and therefore, it is obvious that the court below also recognized that the above defendant intentionally induced this part of the crime, and therefore, it is illegal that the court below recognized that the defendant 1 did not intentionally induce this part of the facts charged without the amendment process of the indictment, and there is no reason to hold that the court below's ground of appeal is justified.

C. Even though the defendants suffered minor injuries due to traffic accidents caused by the other party's negligence, if the defendants were to be hospitalized in a hospital for a long time by infusing the injury, and if the defendants receive a large amount of insurance money on this ground, fraud is established against the whole insurance money. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that a crime of fraud is established against the whole insurance money received by the defendants as to traffic accidents caused by the other party's negligence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise

2. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal against Defendant 1 is to be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)