2. The crime of insurance fraud, such as the crime of this case, harms the purpose of the insurance system of reasonable diversification of risks, and damages to a large number of good insurance subscribers, and there are no significant social harm, such as harming the foundation of the insurance system. The amount obtained by deception by the Defendants is equivalent to the amount of KRW 7.95 million, KRW 5,600, KRW 5736,200, KRW 76770, KRW 5786,000, KRW 5780, and KRW 5780,000, Defendant D did not recover damage to the victim and did not reach an agreement with the insurance company.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, including the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair, and thus, it is not recognized that the Defendants’ punishment against the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair, as it is too unfasible. Defendant A, B, and C agreed with the victim insurance company; Defendant D did not have any record of punishment in excess of the same kind of criminal record or fine; Defendant D appears to have a considerable responsibility for the hospital that actively recommended the crime in order to maximize the hospital revenues; and other all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.