Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for one year.

Criminal facts

Defendant

A and B are simple women, and the mother and wife of E who are detained on suspicion of separate insurance fraud.

Victim F(38 years of age, women) is a person who has reported the case of detention separately E, and is a neighbor who resides in the same apartment as the defendants.

The Defendants came to know that they informed the victim F of insurance fraud under the name of G during the trial process of E, in which the Defendants were detained on a separate suspicion of fraud.

Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. (Compulsory Visits)

1. On May 11, 2014, at around 17:24, the Defendants: (a) informed the victim F of insurance fraud to the Seoul Southern-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City H, 211 Dong 1301, the Defendant: (b) reported the victim’s insurance fraud to the Incheon Central Police Station; and (c) informed the victim of the fact that “I have been detained for 8 months and 9 months at present; (d) whether I can see the situation, whether I would demand a match; (c) whether I would demand a match; and (d) if I would like to have there no adequate appraisal yet; and (d) the Defendant B, who was next to the Defendant, sold as a foot if I had been sealed for a long time; and (d) even if you sold and sold, I would now move to our country, the same shall apply to the case where I had been detained.”

2. The Defendants: (a) around 16:20 on May 13, 2014, around 16:20, the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H, 211 Dong-dong 1301, the Defendant reported why the victim F was “A” to the victim F in the Incheon Central Police Station’s residence; (b) the Defendant reported the hospital that is leading to insurance fraud; (c) the Defendant reported the hospital; (d) whether the hospital was the hospital; (d) whether the Plaintiff reported the hospital with the insurance fraud; (e) whether the agreement was not E; and (e) whether the conclusion was not E; and (e) whether the content of this statement is true with the prosecutor’s access to this material.

The truth is French, the latter is not Madra, etc.