The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence and three years of suspended sentence) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is likely to undermine the trust in the insurance transaction and cause unnecessary social expenditure, and the nature of the crime is very poor. The fact that the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case is higher than the amount of damage is unfavorable to the Defendants, but there is a need for medical treatment to a certain extent, Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment for the last ten years, Defendant B has agreed with some victims, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., as well as various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and deemed unfair. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor’s appeal of conclusion is without merit, and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the application for compensation against the Defendants of the applicant for compensation is dismissed in entirety pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the scope of compensation is not clear as the application for compensation against Defendant A does not coincide with the claim amount obtained by deceit, and the application for compensation against Defendant B does not amount to be partially repaid to the victim by Defendant B, and the scope of compensation liability is unclear as the amount partially repaid by Defendant B is not clear