If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is a person who serves as the representative director of C, a laundry delivery company.

On December 3, 201, at around 18:10 on December 3, 2011, the Defendant: (a) had been aware of the fact that the said employee D driving of the said company E truck caused a traffic accident in front of the G convenience store located in the G convenience store located in the Gyeonggi-si, and (b) had been aware of the fact that the driver D was unable to receive comprehensive insurance benefits due to a violation of age special agreement with D over 30 years old; and (c) has been able to receive insurance proceeds after receiving the accident from D

At around 14:30 on December 7, 2011, the Defendant: (a) called the company’s office located in the Gyeonggi-si, the company’s accounting staff J called the company’s Matz and Fire Customer Center; (b) changed the driver of the vehicle from D to H to receive the accident report; and (c) required H to make the said insurance company’s employees make a traffic accident report and make a false statement.

As a result, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim corporation, Mez fire insurance company, received insurance money amounting to KRW 3,981,440 in total, including the amount of 1,711,440, and the amount of 2,270,000, and the amount of 3,981,440, around January 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and J;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Receipt and details of each motor vehicle accident (the first and second motor vehicles);

1. A certificate of release on a deposit, a statement on personal expenses for medical treatment, a statement on payments, a statement on determinations of automobile insurance money, a statement on the conditions of substitute insurance money, and a statement on payments;

1. Application of statutes governing photographs of damaged vehicles;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine for the crime;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, there is no fact that the Defendant instructed another employee to change the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident from D to H.