2. The judgment of the Defendant was considerably high in the amount of the insurance proceeds received, and the insurance proceeds received were not returned. Meanwhile, the instant crime is a kind of insurance fraud crime that causes a large number of good insurance subscribers to incur economic damage, as well as requires severe punishment by impairing the general trust in the overall insurance system. In full view of these, it is reasonable to punish the Defendant with severe punishment.

However, the Defendant suffered serious injury, and the commission of the instant crime was committed, and there are circumstances to be considered in the motive of the crime.

It can be recognized that he has made efforts to return the insurance money by depositing part of the insurance money illegally received.

In addition, the defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and there is also a circumstance that can be considered such as when all of the crimes of this case are committed.

Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, there is no special change in circumstances that may otherwise determine the sentence and the original court’s punishment, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.