beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and fines for Defendant B for 20,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud and Insurance Fraud Prevention), the Defendant heard the speech that he would take place from D, AG, E, F, and G in fact, and provided guidance on how the process of receiving insurance proceeds in trust is proceeding with any procedure and what documents need to be needed, and there is no fact that he conspiredd with the above D, AG, E, E, F, G, and insurance fraud. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection, 275,100,000 won) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by Defendant B (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months suspension, additional collection of 10,100,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The judgment against Defendant A was made ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, and the Prosecutor added fraud to the name of the crime as to the part as stated in Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act among the facts charged in this case, and applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to a bill of amendment to which Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act is added to the name of the crime as stated in Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act. Since this court permitted the above part, the judgment below was no longer maintained in this regard. 2) The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts as to the facts charged in this part is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, and this is examined in this regard. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by Defendant A and D’s fraud, violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Insurance Fraud, the lower court and the first instance court, and the first instance court, as stated in the judgment of the lower court, Defendant A conspired with the victim AE, QFFF, AF, and IF, and the victims of the injury.
Therefore, this part of the defendant A's argument is justified.