A. Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty part) Defendant was motiveed to stop committing a crime in order to replace all relevant parts in the course of replacing DNA parts; the front glass of the vehicle involved in an accident is not destroyed by a traffic accident; it intentionally destroyed the vehicle, not by a traffic accident; the offender, etc. has no particular external shock trace; the Defendant alleged that the front glass of the vehicle involved in the accident was damaged by his head at the time of the accident, but the Defendant did not suffer injury or received hospital treatment due to an accident; and the Defendant did not specify the relative vehicle and the driver from which the accident occurred; and in light of the fact that the Defendant did not have an actual accident.

may be seen.

Nevertheless, since the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, it erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (300,000 won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to this part of the facts charged, prepared a false statement of the accident circumstance and claimed insurance money for the purpose of receiving towing expenses, even though the Defendant did not have suffered from an industrial company operated by A by using the towing vehicle, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in the lower court’s holding that the Defendant

Even if the traffic accident itself cannot be ruled out that the actual occurrence of the traffic accident, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone proves that the defendant had a criminal intent to defraud the vehicle repair cost portion, without reasonable doubt, this part of the facts charged.

It is difficult to see that the lower court’s reasoning constitutes a case without proof of a crime, and if it examines the lower court’s reasoning closely with the record of the instant case, the lower court’s determination is sufficiently acceptable.