206 Highest 3437 Fraudulent

1. 00

Residence

Permanent domicile

2. 00

Residence

Permanent domicile

3. 00

Residence

- Permanent domiciles

4. 00

Residence

Permanent domicile

5. 00

Residence

Permanent domicile

Dried oil refined

Attorney Lee Jon-hun (Attorney Lee Jin-hun, Counsel for defendant 000)

Public-service Advocates (the national vessels for defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5)

Attorney Kim Sung-sung (Korean National Assembly for Defendant 5)

April 25, 2007

Defendant 00 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for one year and six months, by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for a defendant 000, by imprisonment for a period of eight months, by imprisonment for a period of eight months, and by imprisonment for a period of six months, respectively.

The number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be 175 days in the above sentence against Defendant 00; the 16 days in the above sentence against Defendant 00; the 2 days in the above sentence against Defendant 00; and the 14 days in the above sentence against Defendant 00, and the 14 days in the above sentence against Defendant 00.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against Defendant 00 and Defendant 000 shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Criminal History Office

Defendant 00: (1) The above Defendants were 00 and 00,000 Won for insurance money of 00,000 Won for the above 200-dong 200-dong 200-dong 200-dong 20-dong 00, 1. The above Defendants were 00-dong 20-dong 20-dong 00 and 00-dong 20-dong 10-dong 20-dong 00, 000-dong 20-dong 00, 000-dong 20-dong 00, 000-dong 20-dong 0, 000-dong 0, 00-dong 10-dong 0,000-dong 20-dong 0,000-dong 1,000-dong 0,000-dong 0,000

C. On February 26, 200: around 40, 19: on the front day of the 20-Simpo-Simpo-Simpo-Simpo-Gun 2, Defendant 00: on the 10-Simpo-Simpo-Simpo-Gun 1; on the 5-Simpo-si 200-Simpo-si 200-Simpo-Simpo-si, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 400-Simpo-si, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 00-Simpo-si, 2005.

5. Defendant 00 and 00: (a) On August 18, 2006, in collusion with the above victim Samsung 2: around 30, 00, Defendant 00 was on the street before the head office of Mapo-si located in the Mapo-si; (b) discovered that Non-Party 00 was on board the same 00 shares of Gyeonggi 52 Ma000; and (c) caused a traffic accident by intentionally shocking that Non-Party 2 was on board the vehicle at 000 Mapo-dong 200; (d) without the fact that the above defendants suffered injury, the defendants were hospitalized at the hospital; (e) provided the above 00 Mapo-dong 200 Mapo-dong 300 Gapo-dong 9 Gapo-dong 11,307 and 870 Gapo-dong 50 Gapo-dong 250 Gapo-dong 200 Gapo-dong 9

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant 00,000,000]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 00,000

1. Each legal statement of 00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and 000;

1. Fourth trial records:

1. Title 1, title 2;

1. Each photograph;

[Defendant 00, 000]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 00,000

1. Legal statement of 00,000,000,000,000 for a witness;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant 000,000;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant 000,000;

1. Application of separate books Nos. 1 and 2 Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Provisions of applicable Acts to criminal facts;

Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation in the number of unconvicted days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (Defendants 000,000);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (it does not have the same criminal record for the Defendants, and considering the fact that the Defendants acknowledged each crime in the court of this case at the latest after the Defendants and led to the confession of the Defendants, and that they were in contravention of the truth of 000 and deposited the damaged amount

In addition, the crime of deceiving insurance money by intentionally inducing a traffic accident by the reason of sentencing is not only a brupt damage to the victim insurance company, but also a motor vehicle which is an extremely dangerous object, which damages the other party's vehicle and inflicts an injury on the driver. At the same time, the driver of the other party's vehicle who is not known in English is placed in the criminal law, and the criminal law is hard to detect the criminal until the data are accumulated by committing a similar act for a long time and it is not easy to prove it due to the liverness of the accident of the motor vehicle. In addition, this is a anti-social crime that causes much more severe social costs than the benefits the perpetrator gains.

In addition, even though there is no injury due to a minor traffic accident or the degree of injury is minor, the act of acquiring money by deceiving the victim as an insurance company which is the victim and making it impossible to conduct medical diagnosis and examination of the situation and the degree of the status of the wound in a hospital by using medically clear diagnosis and examination of the situation, and making it impossible to do so. In addition, it is necessary to strictly impose punishment from the perspective of general prevention as well as the act of impairing the interests of the victim.

In addition, the following factors are added to the sentencing of the Defendants, and the punishment shall be determined.

피고인 000 : 이 사건 각 범행 횟수 다수이고, 피고인이 주도적으로 교통사고의 발생이나 보험금 합의 과정에 개입하여 피해자들에게 피해를 가한 금액이 합계 125, 256, 431원임에도 전혀 피해 회복되지 아니한 점, 피고인이 고의로 사고를 유발하거나 별 다친 데가 없음에도 피해자 회사의 직원들에게 폭언하는 등으로 금원을 편취하는 등 피고인이 행한 편취의 방법과 수단, 이 사건 법정에 이르기까지 각 범행을 부인하면서 단지 자신이 합의 보는 능력이 출중할 따름일 뿐이라고 변명하고 있는 점, 이 사건 법정에 나오는 증인들은 대부분 사고과정이나 협상과정에서 피고인으로 인하여 심리적 고통을 당한 자들이어서 피고인에게 상당히 외포되어 있는 상태임에도 자신의 그릇된 행동을 뉘우치지 아니하고 증인들을 윽박지르는 등의 행위를 한 점 등에서 피고인에게 중형을 선고하지 아니할 수 없고, 한편, 피고인에게 폭력 등으로 인한 수회의 벌금 전과 외에는 별다른 전력 없는 점, 피고인의 어려운 경제적 사정, 피고인이 수면성 무호흡증을 앓고 있는 점 등 피고인에 유리한 사정들을 합쳐 주문과 같이 형을 정한다 .

피고인 000 : 위에서 든 증거들에 의하면 피고인에 대한 범죄사실이 넉넉히 인정됨에도 이 사건 각 범행을 부인하며 전혀 반성하지 않고 있는 점, 피고인이 4회에 걸쳐 이 사건 각 범행을 저지르고 그 피해금액 적지 아니하나 전혀 피해 회복되지 아니한 점 , 범죄사실 제6항의 범죄는 상대방 차량에 전혀 부딪친 바도 없으면서 공소외 000을 윽 박지르고 피해자 회사에 손해를 가한 점에서 그 죄질 지극히 불량한 점, 이 사건 재판 진행 중의 법정소란 행위, 피고인에게 사기로 인한 집행유예, 벌금 전력과 강도상해로 인한 징역 3년 6월 형 선고받은 전력 있는 점 등에 비추어 피고인에게 실형을 선고하지 않을 수 없고, 한편, 이 사건 각 교통사고와 관련된 협상을 실질적으로 피고인의 동생인 피고인 000이 주도한 점, 피고인의 어려운 가정형편 등 피고인에 대한 유리한 사정을 보태어 주문과 같이 형을 정한다 .

Defendant 00: Defendant 00 cannot be sentenced in light of the fact that Defendant committed multiple frauds over a long time with Defendant 00 and denies each of the crimes of this case without any reflection of the amount of the damage amount, and is not recovered from damage; Defendant 000, even if the crime of this case was committed with the relationship with Defendant 1, Defendant 1 actively participated in the crime of Defendant 00 by being hospitalized in a long time hospital, etc.; Defendant 1 cannot be sentenced. Meanwhile, Defendant 1 was the first offender and Defendant 1 was related to Defendant 000, etc., and the sentence shall be determined like the order by taking advantage of the favorable circumstances against Defendant.

The judgment shall be pronounced as ordered by the court for the above reasons.

Judges Ko Dong-dong