A. (1) Although the Defendant was aware of the fact that the former husband A borrowed KRW 30 million from the person who caused the fraud against the victim B, but the Defendant did not intend to acquire the above KRW 30 million, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

(2) The Defendant’s fraud against the victim M does not falsely report the theft of a motor vehicle for the purpose of paying insurance proceeds, but rather ordered the victim to pay insurance proceeds in full.

Although the facts were recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not intend to obtain the amount of the tax in arrears at the time, and thereby convicted this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of 2 years and 6 months, which was sentenced by the court below to the defendant, is too weak or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant conspireds with the former husband A to obtain 30 million won from the damaged person, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant.

(1) The injured party consistently with the investigative agency and tried to engage in distribution business of A and B who are the birth of the accused, and was not settled between the accused and the accused until the time on the ground that it is necessary to pay 30 million won as business funds.

7 million won and 37 million won and 7 million won have been drawn up.

statement is made.

② At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was living together with her husband, and her status was concealed by introducing A, who is her husband, to the same birth.

(3) A defendant shall also be an investigative agency.