The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) of G’s investigative agency and the court of the court below, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, are reliable. While the Defendant and H are faced with G’s vehicle, each of the statements made by the Defendant and H are not consistent and are not reliable.

The name of the sick in the medical certificate issued at the time by the defendant is not in accord with the defendant's own shock, which appears in the defendant's statement.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor deleted the “Article 30 of the Criminal Act” portion of the applicable law as to the facts charged in the instant case, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that the facts charged are modified as “the altered facts charged” under the above, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed. In this respect, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake on the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.

On September 30, 2012, the Defendant entered the hospital around 05:30 on September 30, 2012 and claimed insurance money on the ground that he was faced with the said SM3 car on the street in front of the F convenience store located in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, on the ground that he was faced with the said SM3 car due to the fact that he was faced with G and Si expenses despite the fact that he was faced with the said SM3 car.

The Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 1,150,00,00 from the victim under the pretext of the agreement around October 15, 2012, and acquired KRW 1,765,700 under the pretext of treatment expenses on October 17, 2012.

In this case, the judgment of the court below is based on G's investigative agency and court's direct evidence consistent with the facts charged.