The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the defendant did not have intentionally caused an accident and acquired insurance proceeds by deception.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case that the Defendant intentionally caused an accident and attempted to receive insurance money and attempted to receive insurance money, is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts alleged by the Defendant and the defense counsel.

subsection (b) of this section.

A. On February 2, 2015, an accident that occurred around 16:15 (hereinafter “the instant primary accident”) is difficult to view as an accident that occurred to avoid an object expressed by the Defendant himself/herself.

1) After the occurrence of the instant first accident, the Defendant, while receiving the insurance after the occurrence of the instant first accident, was placed in the side ditches while avoiding her own satis.

The background of the accident was explained.

After the commencement of the insurance investigation, the Defendant was aimed at avoiding objects.

Although the statement was somewhat modified, CCTV near the location of the instant primary accident did not confirm the appearance of the object, such as the Defendant’s statement.

At the time of the accident;

O did not witness a material object.

2) According to the K’s report on the analysis of the vehicle accident and the response of the Daejeon Institute of Scientific Investigation to the request for appraisal by the Daejeon Institute of Scientific and Investigative Research, it cannot be deemed that the instant vehicle is difficult to deem the instant vehicle to be a sudden and rapid toward the right side, making it difficult to view it a vehicle involved in the instant accident to view it as the vehicle

3) At the time of the instant first accident, the Defendant was driving in high speed at the speed of 140km to 160km per hour.

However, according to the above report and reply to the request for appraisal, the accident of this case at the time of the accident.