Article 250 of the Criminal Act shall be corrected to “Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act” in Part 2 of the judgment of the court below.

A. Error of mistake

The defendant's purchase of a number of recommended driver insurance contracts was not intended to intentionally take out traffic accidents and to acquire insurance money, but to allow insurance solicitors who come to know with the purchase of driver insurance to join the commercial inquiry in which the defendant works, and each of the traffic accidents in this case occurred by negligence of the defendant.

B. Legal principles

Although the Defendant had already been indicted for the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents with respect to two death accidents in each of the instant traffic accidents, it would be contrary to the principle of res judicata to punish each of the instant frauds and attempted frauds on the premise that each of the instant accidents was intentionally caused by the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

On the other hand, the above argument that the defendant denies each of the crimes of this case was also made in the court below, and the court below explained in detail the decision as to this issue with the title "the decision on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel". The judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, and therefore the above argument by the defendant

B. As to the misapprehension of legal principle

On the other hand, even if the facts have been recognized in the criminal judgment which became final and conclusive, the rejection can be made in light of the contents of other evidence submitted at the trial in question. The defendant's assertion is rejected on the grounds that the defendant's act of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the crime of fraud and attempted fraud are separate crimes whose elements are already punished and whose form of each act and legal interest are different, and their basic facts are different. Therefore, the validity of the final and conclusive judgment does not extend to the facts charged in each of the fraud and attempted fraud of this case. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the defendant guilty of each of the above facts charged, thereby violating the principle of res judicata.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed by Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the other hand, since it is obvious that the “Article 250 of the Criminal Act” under Article 250(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a clerical error under Article 250(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed by virtue of the lack of reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)