The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The facts charged No. B is the owner of the mixed fish code vehicle, and the defendant A is the person who operates the automobile industry company under the trade name of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 'E'.

B On March 9, 2017, the wife F is driving the said C vehicle.

After the accident was discovered that the front door of the above vehicle was damaged, the defendant was inside the office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant was "as soon as possible, under the front wheels, the rear wheels part, the front wheel part, the rear wheel part, and the rear part, the front wheel part, the rear wheel part, and the rear gate part of the above vehicle." The defendant was to respond to it.

B On March 9, 2017, the injured party (State) received an accident to the effect that “the occurrence of an accident, such as the chief, the back, the back wheel, the front, the back wheel, the back wheel, the back wheel, and the back gate, in contact with the cargo vehicles unloaded from the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu I, the first floor, and the J Driner.” On March 9, 2017, the Defendant accepted the foregoing C vehicle’s front and rear wheel, the back wheel part, the back wheel part, and the back wheel part, and the victim’s claim for the payment of insurance proceeds to H.

However, in fact, the accident on March 9, 2017, C vehicles only damaged the front door and did not have any other parts damaged.

In collusion with B, the Defendant, by deceiving employees in the name of the victim company as above, was obtained on March 17, 2017 from the victim as insurance money from the victim and acquired the victim by deception.

2. We examine whether the Defendant conspired with B to obtain the insurance money equivalent to the vehicle repair cost, and the statement at the police of K is difficult to believe as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant acquired the insurance money in collusion with B.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act