beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor on the gist of the grounds of appeal, it is acknowledged that Defendant B was at the time of the instant traffic accident, and that if Defendant B was at the time of the instant traffic accident, he could not incur any injury as in the instant case, if Defendant B was seated with the safety level, then the driver of the vehicle is not Defendant A but Defendant B.
Therefore, fraud and attempted fraud against the defendants is recognized.
2. The lower court determined on the grounds stated in its reasoning, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, that it is difficult to recognize that the person who actually driven a vehicle at the time of the instant traffic accident was Defendant B, and the Defendants are not guilty.
In full examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal and the evidence of this case, it can be recognized only if it is proved that Defendant B sold a safety level at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident (the facts charged in the instant case must be proved that Defendant B sold the safety level at the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident.
The main evidence supporting this point lies in Defendant B’s statement prior to the 2th examination of the police interrogation and in an ex post facto analysis of the causes of the traffic accident in this case. Considering the various circumstances in the judgment below, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant B was driving a vehicle, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant B was driving the vehicle, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant B was driving the vehicle without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendants driven the vehicle.
In other words, it is not recognized that Defendant A received insurance money from an insurance company, and Defendant B’s claim for insurance money to the insurance company constitutes fraud and attempted fraud.
Therefore, the court below is based on the above determination of evidence.