2. Determination

A. Defendant B did not have the same criminal record, and at the court below, the court below agreed to pay KRW 20,000 to the victim's injury insurance, and KRW 35,00,000 to the victim's injury insurance, and it is recognized that the court agreed to pay KRW 4,80,000 to the fire insurance in the same case.

There may be room to see that the criminal intent is dolusent about some of the crimes committed by the defendant.

However, the defendant acquired insurance money exceeding KRW 100 million over a long-term period, which is an act of bringing the economic damage to the general insurance subscribers by causing the insolvency of insurance finance.

If the medical personnel in charge at the time of the defendant's hospitalization examined more closely and judged the necessity of the defendant's hospitalization, the defendant's crime of this case can be prevented. However, such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to the defendant's act.

Considering the above circumstances in light of all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., even if the criminal defendant was not less than a suspended sentence but not less than a certain period of time becomes disqualified for the social welfare official examination prepared by the defendant, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable

Therefore, Defendant B’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. As to Defendant D, only one criminal record of a fine for this case was established, and all of the crimes of this case were recognized and reflected.

However, the defendant, after only operating a gas station at the end of February 201, obtained insurance money exceeding KRW 140,000 from February 2, 2012 from a long period of 1,40,000, which causes the failure of insurance finance, thereby causing the economic damage to the general insurance subscribers.