Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant B and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment for Defendant A, one year of imprisonment for Defendant B, one year of imprisonment for the first instance judgment, and four months of imprisonment for the second instance judgment) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that Defendant A’s judgment on Defendant A recognized both the crime and reflects his mistake, and that Defendant A is not seeking the punishment of Defendant A, but the rest of the victim insurance companies seeking the Defendant’s wife by compensating for a part of the defrauded’s defraudation to the victim insurance companies.

However, the crime of this case is committed by Defendant A, while running Kwikset delivery company, employs many employees and have them make a false statement intentionally, and in a planned and organized manner take account of the following factors: (a) the crime of this case is serious; (b) the crime of this case is committed by taking advantage of the insurance system, thereby impairing the social function of the insurance company and promoting moral hazard; (c) there is a need for strict punishment; (d) the defendant A already has the history of punishment for the same crime; (c) the defendant A uses the same type of crime to conceal the crime while denying the crime; and (d) considering the sentencing factors expressed in the oral proceedings of this case, such as the age, character and environment of the above defendant, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if the sentencing factors mentioned above are considered in the above favorable sentencing, the punishment of the defendant A is too beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

B. Prior to the judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, Defendant B was examined ex officio.