Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 5,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is an insurance designer belonging to the 15th floor of the Incheon Nam-gu C Center, and the defendant A is an insurance solicitor belonging to the 4th floor of building in light of light.

Although the Defendants knew of the fact that, after having subscribed to a large number of insurance contracts in the name of G in the name of G, the insurance policyholders are forced to be hospitalized in the hospital for a long time due to intentional or fraudulent accidents, and that they are divided into insurance proceeds, the Defendants, according to the direction of G, intended the insurance policyholders to design the insurance products with a large amount of fee for hospitalization, operation expenses, and post-accident disability diagnosis, and intended to purchase the insurance by means of being signed without providing necessary explanation for the insurance coverage, such as insurance premiums, insurance terms and conditions, and details of coverage.

1. On August 23, 2013, Defendant B: (a) purchased an insurance policy, such as Nonghyup Life Table (1) with four persons, such as H, at an infinite place; (b) thereby making it easy for H, etc., the insured to obtain insurance money by intentionally or falsely creating a false accident.

2. On August 12, 2013, Defendant A: (a) purchased a large number of insurance policies, such as Korean-style life, modern sea, etc., from among seven persons, such as I, etc. as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table (2) at an influence place; and (b) thereby, Defendant A, an insured policyholder, etc. was prevented from obtaining insurance proceeds by intentionally or by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each of the Defendants’ respective legal statements acknowledged the facts charged in this court, but asserts that “the Defendants were unable to know the G insurance fraud at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract,” taking into account the sentencing that “the Defendants became aware of the G insurance fraud.”

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendants concluded multiple insurance contracts at G’s request. In light of the process of concluding the contract (a contract under the direction of G), and the person paying insurance proceeds, etc., the Defendants as the private Defendants of the specialized insurance design are asserted.