Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

Defendant

B and C shall be acquitted. The summary of the judgment on Defendant B and C shall be published.

. The amount of the gold and the amount of the actual false claim are not different (No. 39-1, 3). Defendant A stated to the effect that even if there is an indication “******” the insurance repair cost estimate (written claim) can be confirmed if the details are inconsistent (as of the date of the fourth public trial) of the witness A’s legal statement (as of the date of the fourth public trial). In such a case, Defendant A stated differently the amount of the difference, although there is no specific reason to prepare different specifications of the automobile inspection and maintenance (b) and the insurance repair cost estimate (AOS claim). Defendant B and C appears to have not compared it with each other (No. 11-10 million won, based on the contents written in the attached list of crimes). Defendant B and C appears to have been not to have compared it (*** the indication “Defendant A” on the basis of the fact that Defendant A voluntarily stated in the written request for the inspection or maintenance of the relevant motor vehicle** the inspection or maintenance of the pertinent specifications**.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

E. Defendant A’s separate receipt of money appears to have received money separately from the vehicle owner, etc. including the particulars described in paragraphs (1) through (9) by Defendant A, and Defendant A was unaware of the fact that she was to receive money separately from the vehicle owner or the customer of parts.

It is probable that the witness A's statement (as at the third trial date) and the defendant A used the method of making a false claim to an insurance company by embezzlement of the company's funds or taking back the price of parts.

Therefore, Defendant B and C are offered only when the insurance money is deposited into the account of J Co., Ltd. operated by Defendant B.