2. In light of the judgment, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant formed an agreement with the insurance company that is the victim of the insurance fraud of this case or deposited the money by deceit is favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the defendant is not an attorney-at-law, the crime of this case is not a crime of this case, such as accepting insurance contracts on behalf of the policyholder, receiving some of the insurance money received from the policyholder after claiming repair expenses, on behalf of the policyholder, and receiving money and valuables. In collusion with the borrower, etc. who is the branch of the church, the crime of this case is not easy to commit the crime, such as falsely claiming the insurance money for self-vehicle loss loss to the victim insurance company by fraudulent means, and it is a majority of the frequency of the crime, acquisition due to the violation of the Attorney-at-law Act and the amount of fraud. The defendant falsely expresses the relationship with the insured while receiving the accident on behalf of the insured, or uses his name as the name of the insurance company. In the process of receiving the insurance money from the insurance company, there is a poor need to strictly punish the insurance fraud of this case as a crime that substantially undermines the credibility of the insurance system, and considering the motive for the crime of this case, the defendant's character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances, etc., the defendant's arguments are not reasonable.

3. Conclusion.