The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and Defendant A shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B Imprisonment for three years, and Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (De facto mistake, unreasonable sentencing) merely arranged for the treatment of W, AA, and AC upon the request of Defendant V, and there was no participation in the act of fraud and the act of execution.

There is no fact that there is no conspiracy to acquire money and insurance money in relation to C, D, E, A, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L.

D. Regarding D and F, even if they were to undergo a brain-resistant response test (hereinafter referred to as “cerebrovascular response test”), and even based on the result, it does not mean that they were issued a false certificate of residual disability since they fall under the middle class, and the refusal to pay insurance proceeds is not due to the fact that the degree of disability falls short of the payment standard of insurance proceeds, nor due to the fact that the certificate of diagnosis of residual disability is false.

With respect to E and G, it is not due to the fact that he/she received the same brain-causing testing and even according to the result thereof, he/she does not receive a false certificate of disability because he/she constitutes an imprehension, and that the refusal to pay insurance proceeds is difficult to be deemed an obstacle due to a disaster, but the certificate of diagnosis of disability is not false.

With respect to A, even if AH was subject to the same brain-causing testing and was based on the result, it does not mean that AH was issued a false diagnosis of a disability because it constitutes an infertility, and the refusal to pay insurance proceeds is due to the fact that the degree of disability falls short of the payment of insurance proceeds, and that the written diagnosis of a disability is not due to the fact that AH renounced its claim under an agreement with the insurance company.

As to H, even if H was subject to the same brain-causing testing and based on the result thereof, it is not issued a false diagnosis of a disability since H constitutes a middle class, and it is not issued a false diagnosis of a disability. On November 27, 2012, as stated in the facts charged, a claim for insurance money was filed with a Mart Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “stock Co., Ltd.”) on November 27, 201, but the payment of insurance money was refused on the ground that it falls short of the payment standard of insurance money, and then is issued