logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.10.17 2013노1529
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary G and H’s statement of the grounds for appeal, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant may be acknowledged to have claimed insurance proceeds as if he used a non-net, used a real set, and used a net, which is a suitable good; and (b) the Defendant voluntarily led to the confession that he/she claimed insurance proceeds as if he/she used a dam-gros, even if he/she repaired an automobile glass with a dam-gros without using a dam-gros; and (c) the Defendant voluntarily led to the confession that he/she claimed insurance proceeds as if he/she used a dam-gros, the lower court was guilty

2. Where an automobile is repaired due to a motor vehicle accident, etc. caused by the summary of the facts charged, the automobile glass is replaced, removed or attached by a motor vehicle maintenance business operator without direct repair in the motor vehicle maintenance business place, and the automobile glass business operator claims insurance proceeds for the expenses.

However, while replacing, evading and attaching car glass, the Defendant claims false insurance money or costs for official rent which is unable to claim insurance money as if it actually used parts are used, and notifies customers that the use of a non-net government product, not a net government product, would not use the net government product. Although the Defendant notified the fact, the Defendant did not notify the fact to the insurance company, but did not inform the insurance company of the fact that the insurance company used the net government product.

On January 15, 2009, the Defendant filed a claim as if he used a non-net and non-net trading while repairing a motor vehicle glass of the E-E-pubing vehicle from the Gu Government-Si “D” located in the Gu Government-Si on January 15, 2009, and filed a claim as if he used the net government product, and as if he used the dam-gras that was not actually used, the Defendant covered the insurance money of KRW 24,400 with the lot insurance company.

arrow