logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.08.22 2019고정120
보험사기방지특별법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is the owner of BSP car.

On June 6, 2018, the Defendant was driving the said car on the 11:49th day of June, 2018 and driving the road in front of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu C Apartment Ddong from the street to the Nowon-gu Station. While the GNAS car driven in the same direction was driven by the F, the car driven in the same direction was faced with a traffic accident that shocks the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle into the right side of the vehicle.

The Defendant, on June 22, 2018, filed a claim for insurance money equivalent to KRW 1,910,590, in addition to the repair cost, for the victim H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”), in addition to the repair cost, even though there was no damage to other parts than his/her own car due to the foregoing traffic accident, the Defendant filed a claim for insurance money equivalent to the sum of KRW 1,910,590, including the fences, the front right-hand repair design, and the repair cost of the seal.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 1,910,590 as insurance money from the victim on July 13, 2018, and acquired it by deception.

2. The judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the defendant only properly requested to repair the damage caused by the accident of this case, and there is no intention to commit fraud.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the Defendant.

It is difficult to see that the Defendant was aware of the act of disposal by deception from the Defendant, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that there was a criminal intent of deception or deception at the time of the act.

① The instant accident is likely to pass between the Defendant’s vehicle and the taxi parked on a two-lane one-lane part of the other vehicle, while the F driven a GNS car (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary vehicle”).

arrow