The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against each of the defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four years and .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced to the first and second instances of Defendant A (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year, the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four years, and the fine of KRW 400,00) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced to the first instance judgment of Defendant AW (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (Defendant AW), although the first instance court's judgment on Defendant AW found Defendant A guilty of committing a crime of violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Fraud in the Insurance Act No. 1 of the attached Table 1 of the judgment below, the court below acquitted Defendant AW, it erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant A was too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The judgment ex officio (the part against Defendant A) appealed against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court joined and tried each of the above appeals cases against Defendant A.

Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below 1 and 2 with respect to Defendant A is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below 1 and the judgment of the court below 2 on each of the Defendant A

B. As to the facts charged in violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Fraud in Insurance No. 1 attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the court below held that the defendant's mistake of the prosecutor's facts is difficult to conclude the accident caused by the defendant's intentional act on the left side of the vehicle, and the accident investigation report prepared by the damaged insurance company is that the FF's vehicle is on the one-lane which is the exclusive right line for left-hand turn, and the FF's vehicle is changing to the two-lane which is the straight line, without the left-hand turn, while changing the vehicle to the two-lane which is the straight line, the two-lanes of the vehicle. In the course, it is difficult to conclude that the accident caused by the defendant's intentional act on the part of the vehicle.