2. However, there is no extenuating circumstance to consider the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime when the Defendant was in a trial; (b) the Defendant was in a trial against his mistake; and (c) the Defendant returned the sum of KRW 672,630, such as agreed money related to the Defendant and hospital treatment expenses, etc., out of the total amount of the total acquired money, to the damaged insurance company; and (d)

However, since the crime of this case is committed by the defendant in collusion with his accomplices, etc. and is committed with the acquisition of insurance money by fraud, it is not appropriate to take such measures in that it can lead to moral hazard such as increasing the burden of insurance premiums of a large number of good insurance subscribers as well as lowering the work log of the general public.

Furthermore, the Defendant planned and led the instant crime, and, on the grounds of his leading contribution to the instant crime, received half of the insurance proceeds paid by F, E, and D, an accomplice, and took advantage of benefit separately.

In addition, on May 28, 2015, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of whether the sentence had been executed at the Seoul Southern Detention House and not having been executed for a repeated crime for more than four months, even if the Defendant was in the period of repeated crime, and, above all, the Defendant attempted to conceal evidence by inducing accomplices to make false statements during the investigation process, and by gathering accomplices. In the investigation agency and the court below, the Defendant had a traffic accident.

The circumstances after the crime have been committed, such as where the court below was bound by the law and it was found that his mistake was wrong.