The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the circumstances of the Defendant, the sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the attempted fraud by misunderstanding the facts, despite the recognition of the intent of deception and deception, since the Defendant drafted an insurance claim with the intent to receive the Defendant’s agricultural damage insurance company by deceiving the victim agricultural damage insurance company.

(2) In light of the circumstances on the accused of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the criminal trial procedure conducted in the form of a participatory trial conducted in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the court's judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, in case where the jury participated in the whole process of fact-finding, such as witness interrogation, and the verdict of innocence issued by unanimous opinion on the admission of evidence, such as the credibility of the witness's statement, and fact-finding, is adopted in conformity with the jury's conviction in the full bench, the first instance court's judgment on the admission of evidence and fact-finding conducted through such procedures need to be respected more than the judgment through a new examination of evidence in the appellate trial, unless there are sufficient and sufficiently opposite circumstances to it clearly through a new examination of evidence in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of direct trial and the principle of court-oriented trials.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065 Decided March 25, 2010) In this case, the trial court did not conduct a new evidence investigation, and even if the grounds for innocence as to this part of the facts charged are compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is justified.