사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for eight months, respectively.
(b).
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is the reason for the prosecutor's appeal that the punishment prescribed by the court of the original instance (six months of imprisonment) by both the appeal court against the defendant A is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, and it is the reason for the prosecutor's appeal.
Defendant
The prosecutor's appeal against B is that the sentence (one year of suspended execution of four months, one year of probation, one observation of protection, and 80 hours of community service) determined by the court of the court of the original instance as to B is too unfluent and unfair.
2. The Defendants’ liability to commit an insurance fraud, thereby causing large property damage, is not against the law.
Defendant
A committed 11 times or crimes, thereby causing damage to KRW 9,288,00,00,000, and he gets a significant portion of the damage directly through mutual agreement, etc., but the damage was insufficient to recover.
Defendant
A Although 5 million won was repaid to the victim at the trial for A, it is not a result of sufficiently restoring the damage.
Since the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable because it is too unfilled, it cannot be mitigated despite the above repayment, and rather, it is inevitable to raise the amount.
Defendant
B participated two times, and even after being placed one year of suspended sentence of six months due to the crime of injury in 2015, on September 10, 2015, which was in the trial of the trial (before the trial date), the first time of traffic accident was partially made on September 10, 2015, which was in the trial of the trial (before the trial date), and even during the grace period from October 3, 2015, part of the traffic accident was again made on October 30 of the same year.
It also did not recover damage.
In full view of the fact that there is a high social and economic need to strictize insurance fraud, equity in sentencing cases that are widely similar to sentencing cases, and other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, it is clear that the lower court’s respective punishment against the Defendants is unreasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, punishment is re-scheduled.