All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, unreasonable sentencing) Defendant A actually resided in the third floor of the instant building, and Defendant B was living in the second floor of the instant building by separating the households from the husband to the non-fire with Defendant C, who is the husband, and thus, the Defendants did not intend to deceive the victims or to take money from the victims.

In addition, the punishment sentenced by the court below (the fine of KRW 3 million, KRW 2 million, KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unreasonable considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s decision on the grounds that the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The Defendants asserted to the same effect as the witness of the first instance judgment, and the lower court determined to the effect that they acquired the credibility of a statement made by the witness of the first instance court and the facts charged.

The existence of credibility of the J’s statements.