logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.03.13 2017고단854
사기등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment of two years and six months, Defendant B’s imprisonment of eight months, and Defendant C of a fine of ten thousand won, respectively.

Defendant .

Reasons

Criminal facts

Defendant

A is an operator of K club as a former insurance designer, and Defendant B is a member of K club interest in the same club, Defendant C is a member of the foregoing club, and Defendant E is a member of the foregoing club, and Defendant E is a operator of “L” who conducts automobile luminous and glass-rating business.

Defendant

A intentionally paid a traffic accident to vehicles, etc. that change lanes, and demanded the insurer to pay a large amount of agreement, repair cost, etc., and, if an employee of the insurance company in charge does not pay the agreed amount, etc., he/she would make the so-called "insurance fraud" to obtain insurance money by filing a civil petition with the head office of the insurance company or the Financial Supervisory Service, which is a method of pressureing the employees of the insurance company. On the other hand, he/she knew Defendant B and C of the method of receiving insurance money.

1. On January 20, 2015, Defendant A’s sole crime committed a traffic accident due to the shock of the left-hand side of the said BMW 535D car at the intersection near the Dong-dong, Seo-gu, Seonam-gu, Sungnam-si and caused a part of the traffic accident by driving the vehicle, despite the fact that the Defendant could have discovered and sufficiently avoided the NMW 535D car while driving the vehicle at the intersection near the Gu-dong, Seo-gu, Seonam-gu, Seoul-gu, and then kid with the Defendant’s running line, and could prevent the accident from spreading.

Since then, the Defendant received an accident from the victim Hyundai Marine Co., Ltd. and the victim Samsung Fire Co., Ltd., an insurance company of the said Vietnam War, which is one insurance company, and concluded that the vehicle was damaged and damaged due to the occurrence of a normal traffic accident to the employees of each victim, despite the absence of any particular injury.

However, the facts intentionally caused a traffic accident, and the defendant did not have any injury.

The defendant deceivings the employees of the victimized person as above, and 8.

arrow