Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

A. The judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged in this case guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles as to fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

1) In examining the parts related to a large number of accident vehicles when the Defendants claimed insurance proceeds, the Defendants merely claimed excessive insurance proceeds by omitting the procedures to delete or correct the parts that were not actually repaired or exchanged among the parts approved by a person in charge of the insurance company, and not claiming excessive insurance proceeds with intent to commit fraud. 2) The Defendants claimed excessive insurance proceeds.

Even if an insurance company pays the insurance proceeds partially reduced from the claim amount through the assessment process, the total claimed amount by the Defendants cannot be calculated as the damage amount.

3) Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the claim details Nos. 12,104 No. 12, and 104 in the annexed list of crimes (3) annually among the facts charged against Defendant B do not constitute a false claim since it was actually accepted or exchanged the relevant parts. However, even if not, the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants (each of 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. First of all, we examine the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the defendants deceptioned the victim insurance companies to acquire false repair costs, etc., and the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① according to the analysis of each crime inundation table as stated in the judgment below, it can be confirmed that the details of parts prices among the insurance claims claimed by each victim insurance company, as stated in the facts charged in this case, are inconsistent with the actual acceptance details, and ② Service Center used by the defendants.