Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, but did not err by misapprehending the facts, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the deception of fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to whether there was a deception of the Defendant in this case, namely, ① the terms and conditions of the victim company provide that the damage on self-owned vehicles arising from the Defendant’s drinking of more than the limit (0.05%) stipulated in the Road Traffic Act shall not be compensated. Thus, unless it is acknowledged that the Defendant was driving of more than 0.05% of the blood alcohol concentration, the mere fact that the Defendant was under drinking of more than 0.05% does not exempt the Defendant from the obligation to pay the insurance proceeds of the victim company. ② The towing E, the towing engineer, did not report to the police at the time of the accident, and did not measure the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident, and there was no evidence to recognize the time and the amount of drinking, which is the official premise of the aboved mark, and ③ the Defendant knowingly claimed insurance proceeds to the victim company with the knowledge that his blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident constituted more than 0.05% of the Road Traffic Act.