Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C Pronouncement of a sentence shall be suspended.

Defendant

A withdrawn an assertion of mistake of facts on the second trial date, and Defendant B also stated that he filed an appeal on the sole ground of unreasonable sentencing on the first trial date.

2. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants are examined together.

In light of the fact that the Defendants recognized all the crimes of this case when they were in the trial, the extent of hospitalization is not required for the Defendants, and the amount of profit that the Defendants acquired by considering the hospital expenses paid by the Defendants seems to fall short of the amount of fraud as indicated in the judgment. Defendant A and B do not have any past record of criminal punishment, Defendant C does not have any past record of criminal punishment, and only a fine, Defendant C is a single-time crime, Defendant C is a single-time crime, and above all, Defendant C fully repaid the amount of money acquired by deceit to the victim interesting State Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and the economic situation of the Defendants is not adequate.

On the other hand, in the case of Defendant A and B, the crime of this case was committed repeatedly several times, and the amount obtained by deception was not much, while the damage to victims was not recovered. In the case of Defendant A and B, there was no special circumstance or change to newly consider the sentencing after the decision of the court below was rendered. In full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendants’ character and conduct, environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime was committed, etc., and the sentencing conditions indicated in the present arguments and records, the court below recognized that each sentence imposed on Defendant A and B is appropriate, and Defendant C.