보험사기방지특별법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable as it is too unfasible that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, two years of observation of protection, and 120 hours of community service) against the Defendant.
2. Determination is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and committed a mistake; (b) the Defendant did not have any criminal record exceeding the suspended sentence; and (c) the amount of damage from the violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Fraud in the Insurance Policy and the special property damage is relatively minor; and (d) there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant.
However, even though the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine of one million won as a special property damage by causing a traffic accident as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment below, the Defendant committed the special property damage of this case by causing a traffic accident like Paragraph 3 of the judgment of the court below. In addition, it is necessary to impose a serious warning and responsibility on the Defendant’s behavior of repetitive violation of the law. In addition, after causing a traffic accident as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below, he deceiving the Defendant as if the traffic accident occurred due to the driver’s negligence, such as driving at school, and the Defendant took the insurance money by deceiving the Defendant as if the traffic accident occurred due to the driver’s negligence. In addition, the Defendant’s liability for such crime is not less than that of the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant committed the above intentional traffic accident due to the reason that the other driver was driving four times repeatedly while driving without a license, and the nature of the crime is very poor, continuing to take care of the employee of the victim and the insurance company after leaving the scene after committing the crime, and the Defendant’s motive and the Defendant’s age was not adequate.