beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, other than the dismissed part of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.
Defendant
A and B shall be punished by imprisonment.
Reasons
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. The lower court’s judgment against Defendant A is clear that: (a) the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention in Attached Table 1, No. 26, and No. 27; (b) the violation of each Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention in Attached Table 2, No. 31; and (c) the violation of each Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention in Attached Table 2, No. 31; and (d) the lower judgment against Defendant C, No. 3
In sentencing a guilty of a violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention, each fraud of the same year, which is in the same relationship with the mutual agreement, shall be judged not guilty on the grounds, and the order did not separately be pronounced not guilty.
On the other hand, only the defendants filed an appeal against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor did not file an appeal against the acquittal portion, and the acquittal portion in the principle of the non-guilty verdict is also transferred to the appellate court, but the part is already deemed to have been separated from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, the judgment of the court below on each fraud that the court below acquitted the defendants is no longer necessary.
B. The lower court dismissed all of the applications for compensation filed by D Co., Ltd. and E Co., Ltd.
According to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation. Thus, the part rejecting the said application for compensation becomes immediately and conclusive and is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court
2. Summary of the grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendants asserted a mistake of fact merely received insurance money through a review of the payment of insurance money by the victim insurance companies after paying a long-term insurance premium and being hospitalized for a long time according to the doctor’s opinion due to the actual disease, and there was no deception of the victim, and there was no intention of defraudation.
Nevertheless, as to each of the facts charged in this case.