beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. The Defendant, in the case of fraud, is willing to enter into an insurance contract in the name of the victim D, who works as an insurance solicitor of the victim D in Suwon-si Co., Ltd. and receive allowances from the victim, including F in de facto marriage, around May 31, 2012. Around May 31, 2012, the Defendant: (a) entered into a life insurance contract with F as a policyholder and insured; (b) paid 395,200 won monthly insurance premium into a life insurance contract three times and received 3,101,332 won from the victim as if he would normally maintain the insurance contract; and (c) concluded a total of 37 insurance contracts from April 30, 2012 to August 31, 2012, and received allowances from the victim.
B. Around February 13, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint with the public service center of the Suwon-nam Police Station, stating that “D, within the office of the Kannam Police Station, and around December 6, 2012, the Defendant brought an injury, such as the fluoral base for the treatment days, by keeping the chair who was seated, in excess of the E office of the Kannam Police Station,” and submitted a complaint with the purport that “D brought an injury on the fluoral base for the treatment days by keeping the chair who was seated.”
2. Determination:
A. In order to establish fraud regarding this part of the facts charged in fraud, it should be premised on the fact that the defendant entered into an insurance contract with a policyholder who has no intent or ability to maintain the insurance contract, with the knowledge of such circumstance. In full view of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can only be acknowledged that part of the insurance contract that the defendant entered into at the victim's office is male and female, family, and sibling, and that there was a case where the insurance contract was not maintained because the insurance premium was not paid properly, and that there was a policyholder's intent to maintain the insurance contract.