All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Punishment of Fraud and Violence, etc. Act (joint conflict), which is the part not guilty of the judgment below against the Defendants, the purport of this part of the facts charged is that the statement by the investigator S of the North Korean branch before the Road Traffic Authority, before the Road Traffic Authority, which appraised the instant traffic accident, based on the black image of the vehicle A that was recorded in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”). The statement by the investigator S of the North Korean branch before the Road Traffic Authority, which stated the instant traffic accident, is that the Defendants intentionally caused the instant traffic accident, by taking into account the evidence submitted, such as the fact that the Defendants’ driving vehicles had speeded at the time of the instant traffic accident, etc., it can be recognized that the Defendants intentionally caused the instant traffic accident, and that the Defendants requested and offered money and valuables to A by means of drinking driving, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous as a matter of law.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B (a prison term of eight months, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendants intentionally caused an accident to a drinking-driving vehicle, and the Defendants were aware of the occurrence of the accident due to the negligence of the drinking driver, thereby passing money to the drinking driver under the pretext of an agreement and acquiring the insurance proceeds of the motor vehicle accident.

A) On August 30, 2015, at around 02:15, the Defendants: (a) drive an IS-type car on the front of the O elementary school located in Y in the Y-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the road in front of the “H” located in the same Gu, and (b) Defendant B was driving the IS-type car on the front of the “H” located in the same Gu, and (c) deemed Defendant C to be frighting the central line while Defendant C was on board the PN-type car and operated under the above A.