beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of 2,500,000 won.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the defendants is divided into and against the mistake, the amount exceeding KRW 30 million is over the insurance money acquired by deceit, the amount exceeding KRW 30 million is returned to the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul is the first offender who has no criminal record, and the defendant Eul has no other criminal record other than the first one, and the defendants' act of causing the crime of this case seems to act as an important reason that the defendants encourage the hospitalization more than necessary in the hospital's side, and they are not in a state of health due to the current navigation cancer treatment after the sentence of the judgment of the court below. The defendant Eul is favorable to the defendants.
On the other hand, however, the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendants, such as the fact that the defendant acquired insurance money from the insurance company through excessive hospitalization, and that the crime of this case is not good, and that the amount acquired by the defendant is a considerable amount.
In full view of these circumstances and the amount of fraud, the age of the Defendants, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the court below to Defendant A is unfair, but the punishment imposed to Defendant B is too unreasonable.
Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit, and Defendant B’s assertion is with merit.
3. In conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since it is clear that “9 times” in the last sentence of paragraph (1) of the lower judgment is a clerical error of “11 times”, it is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and Defendant B’s appeal is reasonable.