Therefore, since the dismissal part of the facts charged in this case became final and conclusive as the defendant did not appeal, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the defendant's conviction part.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the whole crime is recognized and reflected, and the victims of the insurance fraud have recovered part of the damage by compensating the victims of the insurance fraud for KRW 8,866,320, out of the total amount of damage. Among them, the victims of the insurance fraud and the Samsung T&T disaster insurance have reached an agreement with the victim AC of the crime committed by confinement. The victim AC of the crime committed by confinement has reached an agreement with the victim of the crime of escape and the accident after having been injured on duty, and that the victim AJ did not want the punishment of the defendant against the above victims and the defendant who did not want to be punished against the defendant, and that there is no possibility that the defendant might have been a misunderstanding of its age in the future.

However, the number of the insurance fraud crimes in this case reached seven times, and there were many accomplices, leading them to commit the crime under a thorough prior plan, and the amount of damage is also KRW 53 million.