A. In fact, the Defendants were actually injured due to the instant traffic accident and received hospitalized treatment according to the direction of the doctor in charge.

Therefore, there was no intention of deception and deception for the victims of the defendants.

However, the court below attempted to acquire insurance proceeds by deceiving the victim even though the defendants did not have any injury.

As such, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the Defendants’ respective fines of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendants were hospitalized in the hospital with the intent of deceiving the victim and acquiring the insurance proceeds by deceiving the victim.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendants.

① According to the black image, it is confirmed that the string of the I driver while the string of the H car is slightly shocked by Defendant A’s H car.

H Even if it is based on the rear photo of the vehicle, it is not well visible to be damaged on the surface of the vehicle.

② At the court of the court below, N prepared a traffic accident analysis appraisal report: “The vehicle photograph, black stuff image, etc. reported the vehicle body damage and movement change, assessed the vehicle body damage and movement change, analyzed the movement change anticipated to the vehicle and the movement change of passengers, and made a statement to the effect that the physical change was caused by the average average of the passengers.”

③ At the court of the court below, K-type and K-type V also call “the video at the time of the accident shown by the police, which is not so big,” and read “the same as it is not so big.”