The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant was driving along the four-lanes in an accident place; (b) the Defendant was involved in an accident while changing the lanes into three-lanes to avoid reverse driving vehicles; (c) the Defendant reported the accident to the police in order to clarify the responsible relation; and (d) the Defendant did not intentionally conceal the rear black images.

In addition, the mother of the driver of the vehicle driving in Korea was able to receive an accident from an insurance company after he was fluent with the defendant.

Although the defendant did not commit a deception by taking advantage of the J with the intent to acquire insurance money, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts charged on the sole basis of the police officer with no credibility, the J's statement, the fact-finding report unilaterally prepared, etc. (in relation to the control of intention with respect to the J, the judgment on the defendant's assertion is unlawful). 2.

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges on the ground that the Defendant’s act of making the Defendant make a statement to the police as if the Defendant had attempted to avoid the reverse driving vehicle even though the Defendant did not have any accident to avoid the reverse driving vehicle, and allowing the J, who was in error, to receive the insurance money or to pay the insurance money from the insurance company, constitutes a violation of the good faith principle that should be widely observed in the transactional relationship, and thus, constitutes deception.

B. However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved to the extent that the defendant had obtained the insurance money by deceiving the damaged company through J to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

No. 3.