A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not attract other Defendants to commit the instant fraud, and did not report an insurance company’s accident to obtain insurance money. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not attract another Defendants to commit the instant fraud, and there was an intentional contact with another Defendants. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants 1) In a case where two or more persons are co-offenders who jointly process a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal fixed punishment, but only two or more persons intend to jointly process a crime and realize a crime by committing a crime. Thus, if the conspiracy is established in a successive or implicit manner, a conspiracy is established if the intent is combined with the intent to realize the crime by committing a crime. A person who does not directly participate in the act of the conspiracy is held liable for the other co-offenders' act even if he/she was involved in the act of the conspiracy. Therefore, even if he/she had known the method of deception specifically, the conspiracy cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1706, Sept. 12, 1997; 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In particular, insurance fraud, such as this case, is core in reporting insurance companies to obtain insurance money by fraud, and thus, it does not constitute an insurance company or an accomplice.