The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the records, the Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on December 29, 2014. However, on January 14, 2015, when the Defendant’s spouse living together with the Defendant was notified of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records, the Defendant did not submit the statement of grounds of appeal within the period for submission of the legitimate grounds of appeal.

B. (1) The prosecutor’s (1) failure to determine and misapprehension of the legal principle (as to the acquittal part), this part of the indictment is based on deception of “an act of entering into an insurance contract and claiming insurance proceeds in violation of the duty of notification,” but the lower court determined that the violation of the duty of disclosure at the time of entering into a contract constitutes deception, and thus, the lower court erred by

(B) Meanwhile, the livestock disaster insurance contract basically aims at compensating for property damage, unlike the fixed amount insurance contract such as life insurance, is an important and essential matter in assessing the insurable value, and its actual transaction value at the end, which is the basis for assessing such insurable value, is an important matter under the Commercial Act or the principle of good faith, which is extremely difficult for an insurance policyholder to take account of the objective value at the end of the insurance, even though it is a valued insurance. Therefore, in violation of such duty, the act of claiming insurance money by notifying the insurer of the false transaction value so that it cannot be accepted as a means of exercising social norms by impairing the nature of the livestock disaster insurance, and thus constitutes fraud, and this part of the facts charged by the Defendant constitutes fraud.