The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles are not possible to reverse the statements made several times in relation to the course of the instant accident and to believe that the instant accident occurred only with the statements made by A and the comprehensive analysis of traffic accidents.

It cannot be readily determined, and even if the instant accident occurred in the cargo lane,

Even if it is true that the defendant conspireds with A.

Although the facts charged cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a punishment of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) Judgment of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, A operated the “F car center” located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and Defendant B was the owner of GWz car, and the fact was that A was a driver of the said car center, who was driving the cenz freight vehicle requested repair by another customer at the said car center, and caused the said cenz car due to driving negligence. However, A, as owned by the said car center, solicited A to claim insurance money as if the HJ car was shocked on the cenz car above the said cenz car.

The Defendant and A received KRW 13,062,00,00 from the injured party on February 5, 2016, the amount of insurance proceeds of 13,062,00,00 from the maintenance plant, etc. under the pretext of the repair cost of the vehicle, etc., on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant and A, at the immediately preceding car center around January 13, 2016, got a passenger of the said car center, who was parked in the said car center and received the said car from Defendant B, and damaged the said car by obtaining the said car from the said passenger car, which was parked in the said car center; and (b) the Defendant and A got a victim by deceiving the victim by receiving the accident report from the victim Samsung T&T Insurance Co., Ltd.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with A to acquire pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.

2) The lower court’s judgment is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.