Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, Defendant C: fine of 5 million won) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with Defendant A’s first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence as seen above, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant A, and the circumstances favorable to the Defendant. The circumstances alleged by the Defendant A and the Prosecutor as an element of sentencing were revealed in the proceedings of the lower court’s oral proceedings and were sufficiently considered. As such, there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new data on sentencing in the trial following the lower court’s pronouncement, and there was no other change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s final judgment. In full view of the sentencing factors indicated in the proceedings of the instant case, including the Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy, or it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by

Therefore, each of the defendant A and prosecutor's arguments is without merit.

B. It is recognized that Defendant C’s insurance fraud crime not only undermines the social function of insurance and promotes moral hazard by abusing the insurance system, but also requires strict punishment because it takes the economic damage to a large number of subscribers.

However, Defendant C recognized all the crimes of this case, against the mistake, and against the first offender who has no record of the crime, and the Defendant paid KRW 5,044,652 to the victim I Co., Ltd. for the first time in the trial, and the said victim wanted to take the preference against the Defendant.