The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Considering that the summary of the grounds for appeal was stated to the effect that F, G, and H did not regard the Defendant at the site of this case, the Defendant was not on board the cargo vehicle at the time of the instant accident. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around 23:45 on January 201, 201, was not on the top of the household distance of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the right line of which was located in front of the household of Suwon-si, the right line of which was located in front of the right line through the field of the air, and was in conflict with the Dsch Rexton’s vehicle that was directly driven in the air through the field of the air at the seat of the Suwon Central Hospital, and the Defendant was not on the top of the cargo vehicle at the time when he shocked the Esch Rexton vehicle.

Nevertheless, at around 16:10 on January 31, 201, the Defendant submitted an injury diagnosis statement to the victim Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., a insurance company that purchased Lone Star Co., Ltd. at the time of the accident, stating that he was injured as at the time of the accident as at the time of the accident.

The defendant tried to receive insurance money from the victim under the pretext of medical expenses and agreement, but he was discovered and attempted.

3. The judgment of the court below is that there are statements made by the witness F, G, H, police statements made by the court below as well as G statements made by the witness F, H, and the police statements made by the G, which are the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, ① the instant accident conflicts between the Lone Star vehicle and the Bosch Rexton vehicle after the collision between the Lone Star vehicle and the Bosch Rexton vehicle, and the collision between the Lone Star vehicle and the Bosch Rexton vehicle was the main accident, and thus, the negligence between the above two vehicles seems to have been the main concern, and ② immediately after the instant accident, F is the negligence between G and the accident of the vehicle, which is the driver of the Bosch Rexton vehicle.