The first judgment against the accused, except the compensation order, and the second judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable. 2. 2. The decision of this court was made ex officio prior to the decision on each of the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the decision was made by the court concurrently with the case of this court 2012No4095 and this court 2013No25. Each of the decision of the court of first instance is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the case of concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence is determined within the scope of the term of punishment, so the decision of the court of first instance cannot be upheld further.

3. According to the conclusion, the judgment of the first instance court is reversed, without examining the defendant's respective grounds for reversal of unfair sentencing, and the remaining parts of the first instance court's judgment against the defendant under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act excluding compensation order, and the second instance court's judgment is reversed ex officio, and it is again decided as follows.

Since the criminal facts and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as those of the first instance court's decisions, they can be cited as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. The reason for sentencing on January 1, 352, and Articles 347(1), 352, and 30 of the Criminal Act for the crime at issue and the choice of a punishment (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each of them), the following facts are very poor: (a) the instant fraud committed in the course of committing the crime at issue was hospitalized even though it was not necessary to cause a traffic accident intentionally or receive hospitalized treatment due to minor accidents according to a detailed advance plan among the competitors; and (b) the crime was committed repeatedly for a long time; and (c) the amount of the fraud was not only small; and (d) the nature of the fraud committed does not cause any damage to good policyholders ultimately.