A. In fact, although the Defendant: (a) sold and installed a heavy vessel engine to T; and (b) falsely manufactured a false name plate, there is no conspiracy or commission of fraud with T and fraud in relation to the claim for insurance money as shown in the attached list No. 2 of the List of Crimes in the lower judgment.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below duly adopted and examined the following circumstances: ① at an investigative agency, i.e., “T requested the Defendant to make a false statement in response to the occurrence of an accident after the prosecution,” and ② the Defendant made a false statement in the name tag despite the Defendant’s installation of a high engine on AL, and made a false statement in the name tag during the latest year; ③ at an investigative agency, the Defendant tried to minimize the damage of fishermen upon the occurrence of an accident; ③ at the investigation agency, the Defendant argued that “T created a false statement in response to the occurrence of an accident after the prosecution,” and that “T took into account the production year of the name tag and made a false statement in response to the occurrence of the accident after the prosecution,” and that the Defendant did not reverse the judgment of the court below, regardless of whether the Defendant had obtained a false statement in mind and made a false statement in relation to the production year of the name tag, ④ the Defendant’s assertion that there was no legitimate and reasonable benefit in the Defendant’s criminal act.

It is reasonable to view it.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

B. The lower court erred in sentencing, and the Defendant.