2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendants are acknowledged, such as that the Defendants agreed with some of the victimized companies and partly repaid the damage, that the said victimized companies do not want the punishment of the Defendants, that the Defendants are attempting to commit the instant crime, and that the Defendants did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, the Defendants committed the instant crime repeatedly under the same law, and as a result, many insurance companies suffered damages.

The amount of insurance money acquired by the defendants is very large, and the damage was not recovered due to the failure to reach an agreement with some victims.

In addition, the so-called insurance fraud crime, such as the instant crime, not only leads a large number of good insurance policyholders to economic damage, but also requires strict punishment by impeding the general trust in the overall insurance system. Accordingly, the Defendants’ liability for the crime cannot be deemed to be light.

In full view of the above circumstances and other sentencing conditions in the records, such as the age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, even considering that Defendant A paid part of the amount of damage to the appellate court, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.