The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant, who is not a normal lawsuit, only claimed insurance money to a damaged insurance company by receiving a diagnosis from a veterinarian H with respect to a non-permanent non-permanent lawsuit, not a normal lawsuit, and there is no fact of deceiving the damaged insurance company and deceiving the insurance money as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as the wife E of the “D” in Pyeongtaek-si C, was aware of the fact that the Defendant, who actually runs the above farm, was able to defraud the insurance proceeds of livestock disaster with 50% of the government subsidies.

On March 15, 201, the Defendant: (a) made a false purchase and sale contract, even though there was no fact that he/she sold KRW 100,000 to G, a seller, when shipping a normal lawsuit owned by the Defendant (B) and sold KRW 100,000; (b) made a false diagnosis of KRW 50,000 stating that a veterinarian is an injury which is a reason for insurance payment; and (c) made a false diagnosis of KRW 50,00, and prepared three copies of the photograph of the cattle appearing so as to be seen as a non-permanent cattle, and submitted them to the damaged private insurance company B on March 24, 201; and (d) received KRW 1,230,60 from the damaged insurance company on March 29, 201; and (e) received KRW 1,30,000 from the damaged insurance company on March 29, 201, and entered it in the lower judgment on March 23, 2015 through fraud (hereinafter referred to “35”).

2) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant constituted a crime of fraud, on the grounds that it can be recognized that the Defendant acquired the insurance proceeds by means of claiming the insurance proceeds to the damaged insurance company by obtaining a false transaction agreement and a false diagnosis as stated in this part of the facts charged.

3) The lower court’s judgment on the above deliberation is as well as.