Defendant

The judgment of the court below against C and the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant AE, C, AF, AG, Defendant AE, C, AF, AG, and A argue that the sentence imposed by each court below is too unreasonable, because the sentence imposed by each court below is too unreasonable.

1) Defendant AE, AF, and AG 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of probation and 160 hours of community service work: Defendant C1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, 2 years of probation, 240 hours of community service and 240 hours of community service, and 3 months of confiscation: Defendant A2: Imprisonment for 10 months.

B. The prosecutor asserts that the punishment sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant AD (three years of imprisonment with prison labor, four years of probation, and three hundred hours of probation and community service) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant C, ex officio, filed an appeal against both the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of the first instance decided to hold a joint trial against the above two appeals cases. Since each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below against Defendant C is related to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent offenses pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below against Defendant C cannot be exempted from all reversal.

B. The above Defendants’ part of Defendant AE, AF, and AG reflects the fact that they recognized the instant crime and committed a mistake in depth, paid a significant portion of the amount of damage, agreed with the victims, and only one time of fine, and the fact that they were not identical criminal records is favorable.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the above defendants in collusion with the defendant AD by intentionally paying a traffic accident, and acquired large amount of insurance proceeds (the amount of KRW 80 million for the defendant AE, KRW 60 million for the defendant AF, and KRW 74 million for the defendant AG) from the victim insurance company. Since insurance fraud is based on the sacrifice of many good policy holders or legitimate right holders, it may threaten the foundation of the insurance system.