The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it could be sufficiently convicted in light of the situation and circumstances at the time of the instant accident and the similarity of the type of other accidents, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is that the defendant intentionally caused a traffic accident and had the third party acquire insurance money by deceiving the insurance company to obtain insurance money under the name of repair expenses, medical expenses, agreement amount, etc., and by deceiving the insurer after he intentionally paid the traffic accident with the I lele that H drive, such as the statement in paragraph (8) of the Criminal List, and by deceiving the insurer to acquire or have the third party acquire the insurance money.

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the fact that the Defendant intentionally caused an accident No. 8 is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

If the reasoning of the judgment below is compared with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law of mistake of facts.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

3. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of the statutory penalty. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court.