A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants A, and a fine of three million won for the Defendants B) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We also examine the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion on the assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A.

The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance, such as the following: (a) the Defendant, in collusion with the Defendant B, forged or used the lease contract of the gas station operated by the Defendants in collusion with the victims in order to obtain an insurance policy by means of money and borrowed money necessary for the operation of the gas station; (b) the crime of this case is very poor; (c) the damage was not recovered properly; and (d) the Defendant did not have been used from the victims; and (e) there was a history of criminal punishment against the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects the crime of this case in the judgment of the court, and the crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act as stated in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, and the sentencing of similar cases as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy as alleged by the Defendant, or that it is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable as it is alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments of the defendant and prosecutor.

B. The crime of this case against Defendant B in collusion with Co-Defendant A to issue an insurance policy, which the Defendants operated by Q in order to obtain an insurance policy.