All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment) punishment (one million won of fine, two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (the appellate brief submitted by Defendant C, a factual error, does not contain any assertion of unfair sentencing, and the appellate brief submitted by a public defender appointed by the public defender upon request after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief includes the assertion of unfair sentencing. The appropriateness of sentencing is determined ex officio (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4114, Jun. 27, 2013). As the secondary accident occurred in the parking lot for the stadium, the Defendant does not receive false accidents, and there is no fact that the Defendant claimed insurance money of KRW 100,000,000.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, and voluntarily returned insurance proceeds to the victim company on or around January 2016 after the crime of this case (the investigation of this case was initiated on or around October 2017), the primary offender, and the fact that the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is not significant is favorable to Defendant A.

However, even if the damage was recovered ex post, it does not interfere with the establishment of fraud, and the crime of this case is not only to harm the social function of the insurance and to cause moral hazard by abusing the insurance system, but also to transfer the economic damage to the good majority of the insured, and it is an unfavorable condition against the defendant A.

In full view of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment was too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the Defendant C1’s assertion of mistake is acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.