Defendant

A In 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant C’s imprisonment with prison labor, Defendant B’s fine of KRW 3,00,000, and Defendant D.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] Defendant A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on May 21, 2014; on February 11, 2016, Defendant A terminated the execution of the sentence; on April 18, 2018, Defendant A was sentenced to one year by imprisonment with prison labor at the Jeonju District Court for a violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention; on June 22, 2018, the judgment became final and conclusive; Defendant C was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for obstruction of performance of official duties on November 24, 2016; Defendant C terminated the execution of the detention house at the Suwon District Court on April 7, 2017; and on May 4, 2018, Defendant C was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for intimidation at the Eunpyeong District Court’s horizontal Housing Site.

7. 31. The judgment became final and conclusive.

On the fourth trial date, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the bill of amendment to the effect that the criminal power is added, and this court permitted this.

However, the date when the judgment on the crime of intimidation against Defendant C became final and conclusive shall be corrected ex officio as it appears on July 31, 2018, not on July 13, 2018, but on July 31, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendants, “2018 Go-Ma1426,” used the circumstance that insurance proceeds are paid only by simple investigation, such as telephone conversations with the perpetrator and the victim, without confirming on-site by the employees of an insurance company, in the case of an ordinary minor car accident, using the circumstance that the insurance proceeds are paid, even though the occurrence of a traffic accident did not occur, the Defendants were willing to receive insurance proceeds by filing a false report with the insurance company as if there was a person who suffered damage due to a traffic accident.

Accordingly, Defendant A calls for an automobile insurance company to which the harming Vehicle was subscribed as if he was a driver of the harming Vehicle, and claims insurance money as if there were traffic accidents with the Defendants, and the remaining Defendants deceptioned the insurance company by confirming the details of the traffic accident as ordered by Defendant A, when the vehicle insurance company to which the harming Vehicle was a member of the harming Vehicle was involved.