The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant C and G shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. The imprisonment of eight months, and G shall be in six months, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by the defendant A (the factual error) alone does not constitute B’s negligence due to the damage of the automobile in this case, and that the defendant knowingly knowingly claimed false insurance proceeds as if the insurance accident occurred.

B. In relation to the criminal facts of Defendant C, G, and H (F) Defendant C’s judgment, the Defendant received an insurance accident report from the victim malicious damage insurance company on June 24, 2013, and revoked the following report on its own. This constitutes an attempted suspension under Article 26 of the Criminal Act, as it commenced an action and suspended with free will. The lower court did not do so even if the attempted suspension is a requisite mitigation reason. Even if it does not so, the lower court’s punishment is heavy. (2) Defendant G and H’s punishment is heavy.

C. The Prosecutor (Defendant G and K)’s sentence (in both respect of the Defendant G and K) is somewhat weak.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts on the grounds of detailed circumstances in the 14th 15th 15th 12th 15th 12 of the judgment.

The judgment of the court below is correct.

B. Defendant C (1) In relation to the insurance accident under Article 7 of the lower judgment’s judgment regarding the allegation of attempted suspension, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant, on June 24, 2013, filed a false claim for insurance money with the victim malicious damage insurance company, but, on the other hand, discovered that the insurance company employee suspected of an intentional accident was aware of the false report on his name and contact point in the process of confirming the K’s mobile phone, and was exempted from insurance money, and ultimately, did not receive insurance money.” (See No. 226 of the evidence list No. 226 of the case, K, an accomplice, also tried to deal with insurance after intentionally contacted the Defendant’s vehicle at the police, but it is doubtful that the Defendant was engaged in an interview with the insurance company.