The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to all the evidence of the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case due to misunderstanding of the facts, although the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he received false accidents in collusion with F and E and acquired insurance proceeds from the insurance company.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who actually operates D sirens, E was working in D sirens, and F was a former G employee.

F On July 14, 2012, at around 17:30 on the 17:30 on the 14th day of the 2012, F: (a) at the Drenk Round, Lone set up an I. E. E. E. A. E. E. A. E. E. A. E. E. A. E. L. L. (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) for a long-term siren from Drenk E., and did not look at the subsequent objects, and thus, the door was then milked back and damaged.

As F is unable to cope with the repair cost of KRW 15 million, the Defendant, F and the instant vehicle owner: (a) obtained the instant vehicle from a personal vehicle of F to receive an accident from the insurance company as if the accident occurred; and (b) conspired to receive the repair cost.

F The F was in the J of Masan-gu, Jeonju-si on July 17, 2012

On July 14, 2012, by filling the instant vehicle parked in the G K EX Center by telephone and driving it, at around 17:30 on July 14, 2012, the G office received a false accident that the instant vehicle was pushed down and flabed by the door while pushing the instant vehicle behind, and received the false accident that the door was flabed. On August 3, 2012, the Defendant, who is the representative of D Garen, received the repair cost of KRW 15 million from the Defendant’s mother L account (M) in the name of the representative of D Gake, to receive the repair cost of KRW 15 million.

B. The lower court’s judgment, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, incurred some statements in E’s investigative agency and court, and F’s investigative agency as direct evidence that the Defendant conspireds with F and E, and based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by F.