Defendant 1 and one other

The Red Roster

Law Firm Honam General Law Office, Attorney Jin Tae-ho

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

1. Defendant 1, 2

On October 203, 2003, Defendant 1 was found to have been driving by Defendant 2 at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident between Defendant 2, who was driving (vehicle registration number omitted) and the car driving by Nonindicted Party 2 at the time of the occurrence of the said traffic accident, and Nonindicted Party 5 and Nonindicted Party 4, along with Nonindicted Party 5 and Nonindicted Party 5, at the time of the occurrence of the said traffic accident, she was fluoring the car of Nonindicted Party 5 on board and she was fluoring the car of Nonindicted Party 5, Nonindicted Party 5, at the time of the said traffic accident.

Nevertheless, upon the occurrence of the above traffic accident, Defendant 2 made a telephone to Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 2 to obtain insurance money by deceiving Defendant 2 by driving the above car at the time of the above traffic accident and driving it on the vehicle.

Defendant 1, on October 13, 2003, issued a medical certificate that he worked for the husband non-indicted 1, 2003, which is a credit surgical surgic surgic surgic surgical surgical surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surgics.

2. Defendant 1

The Defendant, as described in paragraph (1), claimed false insurance money from December 24, 2003 to January 3, 2005 in the same manner as Paragraph (1) in the same manner as that of the annexed crime list even though the Defendant was on board the above car but did not have different the above car due to the occurrence of a traffic accident, and received each total of KRW 107,541,604,04,00 from 31 times in total, as shown in the annexed crime list (Provided, That each insurance payment date of No. 19 and No. 205 was changed to May 31, 2004) as stated in the annexed crime list.

1. Partial statement of Defendant 1 in the sixth trial record;

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 6 and 4 in the third trial record

1. The witness’s legal statement in the fourth trial record

1. Part of the prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 2

1. The current status of the payment of insurance proceeds, the payment date and sight of the insurance proceeds of the accident related to Defendant 1, and investigation reports (related to the current status of the payment of insurance proceeds of another insurance company);

1. Photographs of the accident site;

1. A written proposal for the payment of insurance proceeds (long-term), a written statement on the receipt of an accident, contract sheet, accident receipt, and other matters, damage, victim inquiry into industry, accident summary and negligence table, long-term industry contract inquiry, long-term industry contract inquiry council, traffic accident confirmation council2, claim for the payment of automobile insurance proceeds, compensation career inquiry, medical association inquiry, medical certificate ( dated 13, 2003), report of the Medical Association of Korea Medical Association, medical opinion statement, medical opinion statement, medical opinion statement, medical opinion statement, medical opinion statement, medical opinion statement, prescription statement, release summary statement, request for examination of the payment of motor vehicle insurance fees, medical fees, statement of claim for medical fees, medical fees, statement of claim for payment of medical fees, medical fees, statement of claim for reimbursement of medical fees, medical fees, statement of claim for the delivery of admission fees, medical certificate, receipt and report of hospitalization, copy of the bill of diagnosis and treatment bill, written confirmation (10, 270, 20, 37, respectively;

1. Determination on the credibility of each of the statements made by Nonindicted 4 and 5

The statements of Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5 are consistent with each other, while Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5 are related to the obligation and obligation with Defendant 1, Nonindicted 5 received money in full from Defendant 1 and did not have any special interest at present, Defendant 1 made a false statement about the appearance of Nonindicted 2, the other party to the accident while Defendant 1 was at the scene of the traffic accident, and Defendant 1 made a false statement about the appearance of Nonindicted 2, the other party to the accident, and Defendant 1 made a statement that Defendant 1 took place at the hospital at the time of the accident. However, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 3 (Defendant 1’s omission) who was at the scene of the traffic accident stated in the prosecutor’s office that Defendant 1 took place via a vialick, unlike the above statements, each of the above statements is more reliable than the change of the Defendants.

Meanwhile, it is recognized that Defendant 1 was at a hospital within the short time after the accident. This is merely a mere fact after the accident. In addition, according to the prosecutor's statements by Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2, Defendant 1 was not a bad appearance of the hospital on the day of the accident. Thus, even if Defendant 1 suffered an injury to the degree of the disability after the operation, it cannot be said that Defendant 1 suffered an injury to the degree of the accident, such as Nonindicted 4's statement. Thus, even if Defendant 1's health condition, the credibility of each of the above statements cannot be rejected.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendants: Articles 347(1) and 347(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

The crime of this case is very poor in the nature of the crime, the amount obtained by deceit of the defendants, the recovery of the damage therefrom, the defendants did not reflect the mistakes, and the defendants are all the primary offenders, and the same punishment as the order shall be determined in full view of the above facts.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Du-ho