Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for four months, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice] On April 12, 2013, Defendant A was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment for occupational embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on July 11, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 11, 2013. Defendant B was sentenced to five months of imprisonment for embezzlement at the Seoul East East District Court on November 15, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 19, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

A. At around 20:00 on March 3, 2010, the Defendants received the front portion of F-owned Ibenz car that was parked in the parking lot for the company F (hereinafter “F”) located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul. At around that time, the Defendants filed a claim for the payment of insurance proceeds with the victim LIG non-life insurance company as if it was a traffic accident due to negligence.

However, the fact was that Defendant B, who was instructed by Defendant A, was intentionally driven by the above so-called so-called so-called the front part of the said so-called benz car, rather than the traffic accident caused by the so-called bench as above.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to deception the staff in charge of the victimized company, and then received the expected repair cost directly from the victimized company in cash on or around March 10, 2010, the Defendants received 9.4 million won from the Korea bank in the name of F under the pretext of receiving approximately 80% of the amount of self-paid and value-added tax, except for the self-paid charges and value-added tax to be borne by the victim from the estimated amount agreed by the insurance company and the victim.

B. On March 13, 2010, at around 03:15, the Defendants: (a) driven a car of the said IWD and got a retaining wall located in the vicinity of the Cheongju-ri, Cheongyang-ri, and continued to drive a new road in the south-ri city; and (b) around that time, the Defendants requested the payment of insurance proceeds as if they were a traffic accident that occurred while trying to avoid a wild animal voluntarily expressed in the victim LIG non-life insurance company.

However, the above facts are wildly shown.