1. All of the judgment of Defendant A1 and the judgment of the second court on the defendant are reversed.

Defendant .

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor of the first instance court and 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment of the second instance court; for defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor of the first instance court; and for defendant C: 6 months of imprisonment of the first instance court) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of ex officio (the part against Defendant A) rendered ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and each court of original judgment rendered the above judgment after completing a separate hearing against the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments and decided to hold a joint hearing by this court. Each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court below against the defendant is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be pronounced simultaneously pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the defendant can no longer be maintained.

B. The insurance fraud crime of this case, in which Defendants B and C participated in the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, is subject to strict punishment due to severe social harm, such as the transfer of economic damage to a large number of general subscribers, and is not agreed with the victims until this court. At the time of the crime of this case, Defendant B was sentenced to a crime of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, etc. and was in a repeated offense period. Defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc., and was in a probation period

However, in this court, the Defendants recognized their mistake, and Defendant B deposited KRW 3 million for the Victim Han Lives Insurance Co., Ltd., and Defendant C deposited KRW 2 million for the Victim KK Mutual Aid Association, the degree of the Defendants’ participation is less than H, which is the principal offender, and the profits acquired from the crime are not much significant, and the Defendants have the same criminal records.