All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In fact, or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendants were guilty of all the facts charged of this case, although they did not have received treatment by actually hospitalized upon the doctor’s recommendation, and did not have obtained the insurance money by deceiving the damaged insurance company after being hospitalized. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Each sentence (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for 8 months; Defendant B: 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for 6 months) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above punishment, which the court below decided against the Defendants, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail on the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the grounds for appeal in this case, following the summary column of evidence in the judgment below, and the court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail. In light of the records and attitude, the court below’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the Defendants, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The insurance fraud regarding the Defendants and the prosecutor’s wrongful assertion of sentencing requires strict punishment in terms of that it harms the foundation of the insurance system by impairing the purpose of the insurance system, encouraging speculative spirit, causing the sacrifice of many peoples of good insurance, and thus undermining the foundation of the insurance system. The Defendants do not seem to have any attitude to deny and reflect the crime; the amount obtained by deception of Defendant A exceeds 70,870,964 won; and the amount obtained by deception of Defendant B exceeds 21,130,429 won; the damage was not recovered; and there was no agreement with the victimized insurance company.