The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. The reasoning of the appeal by the lower court (a fine of three million won per fine) is too heavy or (a) it is too unfilled to the Defendants.

2. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s respective arguments regarding sentencing.

The Defendants led to confession of crimes and agreed with the victims.

The amount of profits actually acquired by the defendants is smaller than the total amount of damage shown in the facts charged.

Defendant

C In the case of the first offender, and the most support for the wife and children, are faced with economic difficulties.

Defendant

D has no record of the same kind.

This is favorable to the defendants.

However, insurance fraud is a crime that undermines the foundation of the insurance system and causes damage to a large number of good insurance subscribers.

Each of the crimes of this case was planned, and in light of the number of the Defendants’ participation in each of the crimes of this case, the degree, and the amount of the fraud, etc., the nature of the crime is not easy.

Defendant

C Insurance money equivalent to approximately KRW 4,530,00 in total with accomplices, and Defendant D received insurance money equivalent to approximately KRW 11,171,00 in total with accomplices, in particular, Defendant C received insurance money directly by falsity, and the degree of participation is relatively large.

This is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that may serve as the conditions for sentencing on the records, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be unfair as it is too uneasible (the Defendants also want to suspend the execution of imprisonment if they are not subject to the suspension of the execution of a fine). The Prosecutor’s assertion of the criminal sentencing was accepted, and the Defendants’ assertion of the

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, and thus, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and it is re-convened after pleading, in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.