beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.07.31 2014노1180

사기

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A and D are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendants, as stated in the facts charged, did not know of such fact, by deceiving the insurance company that did not know of such fact even though they did not have any injury to the extent that the traffic accident requires a long period of hospital treatment due to minor and minor traffic accidents.

The Defendants’ receipt of hospitalized treatment constitutes a legitimate act based on a doctor’s judgment and solicitation.

(M) The lower court’s sentencing (Defendant A: fine of KRW 5 million; and the remaining Defendants: KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

(1) In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the following facts are as follows: ① Defendant A and D, who intentionally caused a traffic accident as stated in Paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, by deceiving insurance companies that did not know it, and ② there was no soft hole (the phenomenon that the road was damaged in the form or in its original form on the road) on the road in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the road surface was somewhat cut off, and the road surface was limited to a certain size. As above, the vehicle cannot be destroyed by the vehicle, such as: (a) Defendant A and D intentionally caused a traffic accident as indicated in Paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below; and (b) Defendant A could sufficiently recognize the fact that a vehicle was damaged by a vehicle due to any other unforeseen cause, by deceiving the victim Samsung F&M for the purpose of insurance money, and by deceiving the victim Samsung F&M for the purpose of insurance money.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the above defendants on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove each of the above facts charged, and the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

(M) On the other hand, the Defendants argued to the same effect as the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.