beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants (two years of suspended execution in October, and two hundred hours of community service in each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Although Defendant B was hospitalized twice, a number of insurance policies are all taken place, but it cannot be deemed that he was insured for the purpose of committing the instant crime, and even if considering the fact that the Defendant partially agreed with the victimized Company or partly repaid the amount of money obtained by deception, the Defendant is the primary offender, and the Defendant is recognized as committing the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions, such as the amount of fraud and the amount of damage reimbursement, the background of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, equity with the Co-Defendant, etc., and thus, it is not acceptable to accept the above argument of Defendant B.
B. Defendant C insurance fraud crime not only leads to a large number of good policyholders to economic damage, but also harming the general trust in the insurance system or medical insurance, which leads to a significant increase in social costs due to nonperformance as a whole, and thus, the criminal liability of the Defendant is not easy to be considered as the responsibility of the Defendant, since the hospitalization or the hospitalization period of the Defendant cannot be determined independently, it is difficult to view all of them as the responsibility of the Defendant. The Defendant subscribed to the two location insurance of the victimized company. One of them is the Defendant’s subscription seven years from the instant crime, and the remainder cannot be deemed as being the Defendant’s subscription for the instant crime. The Defendant’s subscription for the instant crime cannot be deemed as being for the purpose of committing the instant crime. The Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment (the remaining damage is about KRW 21 million with the victim’s life insurance) by mutual consent with the victim interesting fire (the victim’s damage is about KRW 21 million). The Defendant