2. It is recognized that the Defendants made a confession of all the crimes and divided their mistakes, Defendant A returned part of the amount obtained by deceitation of a single fraud crime, Defendant C was the primary offender, and the actual profit gained by the instant crime was merely 1.50,000 won.

However, insurance fraud requires strict punishment in terms of that the purpose of the insurance system is to undermine the rational diversification of risks, to encourage speculative spirit, and to cause the sacrifice of many subscribers to insurance policies, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Defendant A not only has been punished several times due to the same type of frauds, but also commits each of the instant crimes without being aware of the period of suspension of execution due to frauds, the damage recovery is most not realized, the damage insurance company did not agree with the damaged insurance company, the degree of the Defendants’ participation in each of the instant crimes, the degree of the Defendants’ age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, shall not be acknowledged to be unfair because the lower court’s punishment is too excessive.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Of the judgment below’s correction of the statement of the judgment below, the first head column for the crime history was 5.

“Ack’s loss”, “K5 vehicle”, “K5 vehicle” as “K5 vehicle”, “4. Suspension of execution” as “5.”, “5. Social Service Order” as “6.”, and “5. Social Service Order” as “6.”, and “4.... Defendant C, and C, and D: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, and “7.......” In the last part, “Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act” as “Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.”