Defendants are not guilty.

A. Defendant A1) In fact, although the Defendant was actually injured while on duty and did not receive insurance benefits by falsity, the lower court convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts, and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant appeared to have observed the facts beyond A, and described a written statement as explained by A concerning the circumstances beyond A.

In addition, even at the time of witness and preparation of a written statement, the defendant did not know that A has postponed as if he were in the workplace to obtain industrial accident compensation insurance benefits, etc.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit a crime of aiding and abetting fraud.

In addition, the main contents of the witness statement prepared by the defendant are consistent with facts and exceeded the permissible limit of language.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict against the defendant, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants in the facts charged of this case work together with the Fluri Factory Fela Co., Ltd., Ltd. at the time of 113 U.S. Madle-ro, Madle-ro, and are the post-ship of the workplace in charge of the assembly of automobiles.

1) Defendant A: The defrauded was injured while on March 1994 and around December 2, 2009, and was experienced by Defendant A, and applied for insurance benefits to the Labor Welfare Corporation for industrial accident insurance benefits. At this time, Defendant A becomes aware of the fact that he/she recognizes an industrial accident without conducting a factual investigation if he/she finds a witness’s statement on the grounds of the injury, and that he/she recognizes an industrial accident irrelevant to his/her duties as an industrial accident.