2. In light of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that all of the instant crimes are recognized by the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant was involved in the instant crime upon the request of co-offender C, and the fact that the Defendant could not divide the profits obtained by deception by the instant case, but such insurance fraud is deemed to have been obtained by deceptioning the insurance money through a false accident report, and that such insurance fraud is causing a sincere general policyholders to bear a burden and moral hazard, thereby increasing social costs; the Defendant was the driver of the instant vehicle; the Defendant was acting as the driver of the instant accident vehicle; the Defendant was an essential part for the instant crime; and the Defendant was well aware of the insurance business since around five months from 200 to 209 as to the business of selling the automobile insurance, etc. while working as the same fire insurance solicitor (123 pages).

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and various factors of sentencing indicated in the record, such as circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

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