The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not falsely notify the victims of the value of “D” and “K” when concluding each of the instant livestock insurance contracts, and it cannot be deemed that the conclusion of a sales contract for the said horses was subject to the duty of disclosure, and there was deception on the fraud of insurance money solely on the ground that the Defendant merely violated the duty of disclosure.

shall not be appointed by a person.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle

Where a person who concludes an insurance contract intentionally causes an insurance situation in which the amount of the insurance exceeds considerably the value of the subject matter at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, and then claims the insurance money with silenting the value of the subject matter for which the insurer is unaware of the fact that the insured event occurred, if it is recognized that the insurer would have known that the insured amount substantially exceeds the value of the subject matter, and that the insurer would not conclude the insurance contract under the same condition if it would have known that the insured amount would have significantly exceeded the value of the subject matter, and that the insurer would not pay the insurance money as it is, the act of claiming the insurance money without silenting the value of the subject matter to the insurer who was unaware of the fact that the insurance contract exceeds the value of the subject matter constitutes a deception as a commission of fraud (see