2013No1401 Fraud, Fraud

A

Prosecutor

Lee Jin-bok (Court) (Court of Justice) (Court of Second Instance)

Law Firm B, Attorney C

Busan District Court Decision 2011 High Court Decision 2885 Decided April 17, 2013

June 28, 2013

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant can be found to have caused a traffic accident intentionally in order to receive insurance money, so the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of this case.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant intentionally caused a traffic accident that caused a certain injury to the victim's family life insurance company (hereinafter referred to as "school life insurance company") and the driver's insurance company of the victim's family fire insurance company (hereinafter referred to as "Dong fire") with intent to buy a high-priced insurance policy for the purpose of receiving the insurance money.

Around September 30, 2009, the Defendant did not own a self-owned vehicle, and did not drive a normal distance as its main business, and there is no need to purchase high-priced insurance because it did not frequently do so, the Defendant purchased an insurance policy. However, around September 30, 2009, around October 8, 2009, the Defendant purchased a family security franchise insurance for the victim interesting State Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Seongsung (hereinafter referred to as the "Seong Fire").

The above two insurances have reached a total of KRW 520,00,000,000, and not paid insurance money in full by each insurer, but can expect that if a traffic accident occurs, a considerable amount of insurance money can be paid. Accordingly, in order to cause a traffic accident on purpose, the defendant requested a siren company to buy a car insurance policy in advance, and then he sent an Aburged car with an Aburgic white bag attached around October 12, 2009.

The Defendant, at around 20:00 on October 18, 200, driven the hurfed car directly and sustained injury equivalent to the Class 1 of disability by causing a traffic accident falling into the 5-meter high from the road without intentionally escaping from the road and falling into the burging down at a 12-meter range without a protective fence, while driving the hurg car at the above Amburg rate of 102 water in Yangsan-si at the water level of Yangsan-si.

Since then, the Defendant had intentionally caused a traffic accident but intended to receive insurance proceeds by concealing such fact and causing a disguised accident, around December 10, 2009, the Defendant: (a) filed a claim for insurance proceeds with the victim Samsung C&T (hereinafter “victim C”); (b) around January 13, 2010; (c) around April 23, 201, with the victim’s interesting life; and (d) on April 26, 2010, with the victim’s interesting life, respectively; and (e) filed a claim for insurance proceeds with the victim’s interesting life; and (b) around December 16, 201, with the victim’s interesting life by deceiving the victims as above; (c) 35,610,000 won; (d) 400,700,000 won around February 28, 201; and (d) 25,3887,415,7531,51, etc. of the victim’s interest from the victim’s attempted.

B. Determination

The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not lead to a traffic accident in light of the following: (i) it is difficult to see that it intentionally causes a traffic accident involving a certain degree of injury; (ii) it does not seem to have been exceptional to subscribe to an additional insurance for Samsung Fire, Power Bio-resources, etc. because the defendant is not in an economically difficult situation; and (iii) it appears that the defendant was required to subscribe to an insurance in preparation for a traffic accident since he was engaged in the business of driving cargo; and (iv) the defendant was solicited from Samsung Fire, an insurance solicitor, to subscribe to an insurance with a large amount of monthly insurance premium and insurance premium than the insurance of the case in which the actual defendant actually subscribed, but requested to introduce an insurance with low monthly insurance premium; and

In light of the above reasons cited by the court below, G and H’s statements, which correspond to the fact that the instant traffic accident was caused by the Defendant’s intentional act, are directly proved by the fact that the Defendant made a speech or behavior demanding suicide before the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, and that it is difficult to believe that the Defendant did not comply with the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant caused a traffic accident for the purpose of causing certain injury to a certain degree, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and the prosecutor’s assertion of such an error

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Maximum Judge of the presiding judge

Judges Kim Gin-hee

Judges Kim Gin-han