The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of two million won) of the first instance court is too unreasonable;

2. The judgment of the court of first instance can no longer be maintained, since the ex officio judgment prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment as stated below, and this court permitted changes in the indictment as stated below.

3. In conclusion, the first instance judgment is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the grounds for reversal ex officio exist, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The Defendant and B, C, D, and E were operated with F and G proposals, and the latter would have intentionally followed a sudden balk and let the Defendant, B, C, D, and E get the latter to get the vehicle on board, and then receive the insurance money by being hospitalized.

B In order to commit an insurance fraud as above, C was recruited to commit an insurance fraud, and C was recruited by being aware of it in a usual manner, D and Defendant.

Around 05:50 on November 5, 2013, the Defendant, C, and D driving an I human vehicle in the Han River from the Gangseo-dong, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the Han River) and the Defendant, C, and D, while driving the said vehicle along the said vehicle, the Defendant, C, and D, in line with the new arrangement that the numberless vehicle operated by G was promised in advance, H followed followed by the said human vehicle in the front of the said human vehicle, and subsequently, H followed followed by the J, who was driven by the said human vehicle.

H acted as E by the victim LIG staff, and D was the same as her driving, and E was hospitalized as if he was injured due to a traffic accident even though he did not board the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with B, C, D, and E, has caused an accident by intention, and deceiving the damaged company as if the accident occurred by negligence.