The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective sentences of the Defendant B and C (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) are too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) In relation to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant D intended to receive insurance proceeds by planning to commit a crime of conflict with Defendant A, a co-defendant of the lower judgment, and committing an insurance act.

There is no fact that A received part of the money from the victim Hyundai Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and there is no fact that A received part of the money from the victim's Hyundai Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., so it is not possible to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation with Defendant D, in collusion with Defendant A, by fraud

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant D’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant D’s assertion 1) Defendant D also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court.

The court below held that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the court below, namely, ① Defendant D intended to provide alcohol to G as an insured person of the victim company A, B, and C, and intentionally led A to drive alcohol, and then intended to take a traffic accident into effect, ② Defendant D was waiting in a nearby vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the traffic accident, ② Defendant D was waiting in a nearby vehicle; ③ although Defendant D failed to take off money from G unlike Defendant D’s estimate, but intentionally went to the vehicle waiting for Defendant D after the occurrence of the traffic accident, the court below stated that “the insurance management is carried out by reporting to the insurance company, which is a driver,” and “the insurance management is carried out by Defendant D by reporting to the insurance company.”

Defendant D voluntarily stated in the investigative agency, and 4. A also talked that Defendant D had received insurance proceeds from insurance processing.

(5) A bears witness from the victim company.