The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds (the factual error) caused a traffic accident of 28 times at intervals of 1 to 4 months from April 2009 and 2013, and received a total of 104,036,370 won as insurance money, and received relatively long-term hospital treatment compared to the content of the accident. At the time, Defendant A’s occupation was not specified by the reported, reporting, fireworks, employees, distribution of a sexual traffic log, etc., and if the contents of the accident that can be confirmed by each black image, it appears that the Defendant intentionally caused an accident, or could have predicted or prevented the accident, and the other party’s driver also stated the same fact that the Defendants intentionally paid the accident, and even if it is possible to receive hospital treatment, the Defendants may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendants acquired insurance money by deceit or by deception without a certain occupation.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.

2. The lower court determined as follows: ① the accident of May 20, 2013, which was recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, was caused by the sudden change of the other taxi lane; ② the investigation agency, through the statement of the other taxi driver and victims, on-site investigation, and video image of the black box; ② the accident of May 14, 2009, was caused by the other taxi driver’s negligence; ② the accident of May 14, 2009, was caused by the other taxi driver’s failure to secure the safety distance of the other taxi; and ③ the other accident was dealt with by the other taxi driver’s negligence through a on-site investigation, etc.; and ③ the other accident.