The defendant did not intend to acquire fire insurance money, since he did not have had the defendant prepare a false statement of transaction, etc. in order to correct the stock amount at the time of the occurrence of the fire.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts.

Judgment

The lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant submitted a false statement of trading, etc. to Samsung Fire to Samsung Fire and attempted to obtain the difference of insurance proceeds by deceiving KRW 85,001,00,00, by submitting a false statement of trading, etc., as if it were the final inventory, in full view of the following: (a) the details of trading that the Defendant submitted to the victim company, not the final trading amount immediately before the occurrence of the fire, but the total trading amount; and (b) a large number of suppliers, including the supply of fishing products, are difficult to keep for a long time; and (c) the Defendant stated that the Defendant was supplied with fishing products upon the order of most consumers.

In light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court, the lower court’s determination was justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the facts, in so doing, by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the credibility of the supplier’s statement, as follows: “The Defendant made a statement in the prosecutorial office that “the amount of transactions to the customer was set up and changed by making all the amount of transactions to the customer, which was the recent submission of transaction data by the insurer.” (Evidence No. 395 of the evidence record)

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.