The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendants to the punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants made confession of all of the instant criminal acts and recognized their mistake, and among the instant criminal facts, some of the criminal facts appear to include the Defendants in the case of actual hospitalization or treatment (Provided, That even if the Defendants suffered from injury or disease that may fall under such insurance accidents, if they claim excessive insurance proceeds compared to the actual amount of injury due to prolonged hospitalization, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17512, Feb. 24, 201). Considering the insurance premiums paid by the Defendants and the medical expenses for self-payment paid by the Defendants, it would be less than the amount acquired by the Defendant due to the instant criminal act, and the victim’s insurance company would be deemed not to do so despite the fact that it could clarify the Defendants’ criminal acts in the early stage through a strict review for the benefit of expanding the insured, it would be considered that Defendant A was the first criminal, and Defendant B was not subject to the same criminal records other than the punishment of fines imposed several times due to the violation of the Public Waters Management Act.

However, the crime of this case is a matter of obtaining insurance money from multiple insurance companies by pretending that there is no need for hospitalization after being subscribed to a multiple insurance, or by exaggerationing the necessity of hospitalization. The insurance fraud of this case, such as this case, directly causes property damage to the insurance companies that are victims, but the insurance premium is increased and the damage is ultimately returned to the majority of the decent policyholders, so a more severe punishment is required.