All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal F and E are known to the Defendants by police that they intentionally caused a traffic accident.

진술한 바 있고, 위 사람들이 원심에서 증인으로 출석하여 이와 달리 증언한 것은 위증으로 보이는 점, 피고인들이 경찰에서는 이 사건 각 범행을 자백하는 취지로 진술한 점, 그 밖에 원심도 인정한 사정, 즉 피고인들이 F, E에 의한 고의 교통사고로 파손된 차량에 관하여 견적서를 교부한 점, 파손된 부품 중 머플러는 페인트만 뭍은 것으로 수리가 불필요한 데도 부품 견적서에 포함된 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인들은 견적서 발급 당시 F, E이 고의로 교통사고를 발생시킨 사실을 인식하고 있었음이 충분히 인정된다.

However, the lower court erred by accepting the Defendants’ legal proceedings and acquitted the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendants did not assist the Defendants in committing the crime of fraud of EF because they were unaware of the fact that E and F intentionally caused a traffic accident at the time of issuing a written estimate of vehicle.

The argument is that ① the investigation protocol prepared by the police in relation to E and F denies the contents of the interrogation protocol prepared by the police in relation to the accomplice; ② E and F denies the authenticity of the establishment in the court below's trial; ② The investigation protocol prepared by the police in relation to the defendant B about the defendant B is denied by the above defendant; thus, it cannot be used as evidence for the above defendant; and the statement made by E and F in relation to the police officer R who investigated E and F as the suspect does not constitute a case where E and F are unable to make a statement pursuant to Article 316 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act; ② The part concerning the statement made by the police officer R who investigated E and F as the suspect does not constitute a case where E and F are unable to make a statement pursuant to Article 316 (2) of the E and F's Criminal Procedure Act; ② according to each court's written statement, written estimate, each internal report, each investigation report, each investigation report, etc.