The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not have prepared a joint and several statement with C’s daily allowance of KRW 1.80,000 as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, but the court below recognized that the defendant conspired with C to prepare and take a joint and several statement as above, and committed a crime of violating the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act and a crime of fraud against the disability lump sum payment. Thus, the judgment of the court below

2. In light of the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, if there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance, unless there are exceptional circumstances where it is deemed that the first instance court’s determination on

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s examination of the evidence duly admitted and examined based on the above legal principles, and the court below, after having undergone the examination of witness with respect to C, etc., directly conducted the examination of evidence and stated the reasons in detail in the judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel, found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act regarding lump sum disability payment among the facts charged in the instant case, and of fraud, by comprehensively taking into account other circumstances, it is not clearly unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the court below as to the credibility of the statement of the witness C in the lower court, and as such, the defendant conspired with C to provide lump sum payment on disability.