The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 25,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (no more than 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. An insurance fraud crime is an unfavorable circumstance, such as the fact that the crime of insurance fraud harms the foundation of an insurance system aimed at decentralization of reasonable risks, the fact that it is not good to commit an offense by precluding damage to a large number of good subscribers, and that the total acquired amount of money is KRW 130 million in total.

On the other hand, the defendant is the first offender, and the defendant recognized the crime of this case to be committed in this court, and seems to have divided his mistake and reflected in depth, and there are some circumstances to consider the fact that the crime of this case was committed by solicitation and introduction of insurance fraud broer, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the crime of this case. The defendant actually suffered injury on his body part related to the crime of this case, and the defendant is not to be stated in the latter disability diagnosis certificate, but to some extent there seems to exist disability, and he paid or deposited about 66 million won out of the amount acquired by the victim insurance companies. Among the above companies, the defendant was a first offender, AC company, AD company (former AE company), AF company (former AE company), and AF company (former AG company) from 2015, and the crime of this case was committed as a fire official in favor of the defendant before it becomes a fire official.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor that can deprive the defendant of his status as a public official is somewhat harsh.

Therefore, since the court below's punishment is recognized as unfair, the defendant's assertion is reasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion is justified.