2. The judgment of the court below that the defendant deposited 8 million won to the victim in the court below to recover part of the damage, and that the confession and reflect of the crime of this case are favorable to the defendant.

However, the facts are as follows: (a) concluding a guarantee insurance contract using a false goods supply contract, even though it is not a person subject to the guaranteed insurance policy because it borrowed money from a third party; and (b) allowing a third party to pay the relevant insurance proceeds by causing an insurance accident; (c) the remaining amount of damage is not specified in the total amount of KRW 16 million despite partial recovery of damage; and (d) the defendant has the record of being punished for the same kind of crime; and (e) there is no change in circumstances that make it possible for the court to change the sentence of the court below to the appellate court; and (e) taking into account all the sentencing conditions on the records and changes in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too too excessive to the

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; however, the last sentence of the crime of the judgment below in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure shall be corrected as follows: " By deceiving the victim's Seoul Guarantee Insurance and allowing the defendant to pay insurance money of KRW 26,154,450 to the first L&C, thereby acquiring the defendant's first L&C's proprietary interest in return for the equivalent amount of the same amount of the insurance money."