The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although a misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (the attempted fraud) stated that the Defendant, while he was an employee of D in the process of claiming insurance proceeds, he/she is not D’s employee, he/she should do so.

Since the defendant is unable to claim insurance money or is not exempt from the payment of insurance money by the insurer, there was an intentional act of deception or fraud against the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. In the event of the exercise of rights by means of deception as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the act belonging to the exercise of rights and the act of deception belonging to the said means shall be comprehensively observed, and if such deception cannot be acceptable as a means of exercise of rights in light of social norms, the act belonging to the exercise of rights constitutes fraud.

In a case where an insurance accident occurred and then a third party uses unlawful methods, such as forging evidentiary materials to calculate the amount of damage or attaching transaction specifications, etc. containing false contents, barring special circumstances, the act of fraud commences as it goes beyond the extent acceptable as a means of exercise of rights under the social common sense, and barring special circumstances.

I would like to say.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendant served as the employee of H at the time of the occurrence of a fire, and the written answer submitted to the due diligence on July 7, 2015, which was submitted by the Defendant to the due diligence for the damage, are as follows: “DH is a fire victim.”

Nr. Nr. Nr. N. L. N. L. N. L. L. L. L. L.N.

“Falsely indicated,” and submitted a claim for insurance on July 22, 2015, and ② the Defendant was informed of the fact that he was not aware of the insurance at the time of the fire during the interrogation process of the suspect by the prosecution, 3 days after the time of the fire, and became aware of the fact, and at the time of the insurance designer.