The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are caused only by the negligence of one’s own driving or another’s vehicle, not intentionally causing a traffic accident, and there is no fact that Co-Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the original judgment and there was no conspiracy of insurance fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant violated the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention in collusion with A is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes a violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Insurance Fraud, on the grounds that, in full view of all the developments and process of each traffic accident, the driving direction of each vehicle, the location before and after the accident, the operation of steering gear and brakes at the time of the accident, the degree of the vehicle’s damage or the frequency and location of the outing in which the Defendant, the Defendant, the Defendant, and A actually received hospital treatment, and the fact that the Defendant was paid insurance money in collusion with A in excess of the degree of the actual injury.

B. 1) Determination on whether an insurance fraud was committed) In the event that an intentional accident was caused by the intention of deceiving the insurance money by fraud, fraud regarding the insurance money is established. Furthermore, even if a defendant suffered minor injuries due to an accident that may constitute an insurance accident, if he/she received the insurance money in excess of the actual damages by exaggeration the intention of deceiving the insurance money through deception, fraud is established against the entire insurance money.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2134, May 11, 2007). Furthermore, it is recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.