All of the Prosecutor and the Defendants’ appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The public prosecutor (Defendant A) (1) misjudgmentation of facts (as to the acquittal portion of the lower court against Defendant A), each of the facts charged that the lower court acquitted the Defendant A is also aimed at acquiring insurance proceeds, even though there was no fact that the lower court did not do so, and even if the lower court’s negligence was cut down.

However, considering that high-amount medical expenses are paid compared to the degree of minor strike, the intention of defraudation of the whole insurance money is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (one year of imprisonment with labor and three years of suspended execution) is too unhutiled and unfair.

B. As to Defendant A, B (1) and B’s single criminal conduct (defendant 1 and 2), the above Defendants actually received hospitalized treatment due to traffic accidents, etc., and the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the charges, even though there was no fact that the said Defendants had fraudulently obtained insurance money by deceiving the insurance company.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) As to the facts charged pursuant to paragraph (3) of this Article, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A and B guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though it did not constitute a crime of fraud since Defendant A and B conspired with Defendant C for an accident.

(2) Each sentence (as seen earlier, Defendant A and Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor) sentenced by the lower court on Defendant A and B is too unreasonable.

C. As to the facts charged by Defendant C (1) of mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant C guilty in the absence of the fact that Defendant C conspired with other Defendants about the accident by deceiving the insurance money.