All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that each of the accidents in this case actually occurred, and the defendants did not intentionally cause an accident or make a false report to an insurance company.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal at the court below. The court below held that the Defendants asserted that the following facts or circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, in light of the monetary content when the Defendants received each of the instant accidents, the Defendants actively concealed their mutual relationship beyond merely did not ask counselors to the extent that they did not know the fact in a mutual relationship with each other. In light of the details of the Defendants’ telephone call and the degree of exchange of SNS, the Defendants appear to have a more-friendly relationship than a simple one. The Defendants do not appear to have any witness since they are married, and all of the Defendants do not have any witness, and it is ordinary to reduce the number of disputes that may occur later by reporting to the police or requesting the on-site dispatch service of the insurance company employees to confirm the on-site. In general, the Defendants did not know the relationship with each other, and the Defendants were aware of the fact that the Defendants received the accident report at least the amount corresponding to the repairs cost out of the insurance proceeds received by each of the instant accidents, and the Defendants were aware of the facts charged or attempted money.

The court below's decision on the above circumstances stated by the court below.