1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 10, 2008, the Defendant, an insurance solicitor, heard from the network I, “I cannot receive national subsidies from the disabled children, if you have money in the I’s account. I want to subscribe to the insurance in the Plaintiff’s name, his father, who is his father.” The Defendant concealed the above fact to the Plaintiff C, and made a false statement to the effect that “I want to subscribe to the insurance in the Plaintiff’s name, who is his father. I want to subscribe to the insurance in the Plaintiff’s name, who is his father.” The Defendant purchased the Samsung Bio-Distribution Pension Policy under the name of the Plaintiff C as the consortium in charge.”

B. On January 29, 2010, the Defendant, who is the actual policyholder of the foregoing insurance and the payer of the premium, misleads the Plaintiff C, who is aware of the fact that the Defendant is not the Defendant but the Defendant, thereby deceiving part of the paid insurance money, and falsely stated that the Plaintiff C “I withdraw part of the insurance premium paid by the Defendant to the insurance company and then request the Defendant.”

Around January 29, 2010, the Defendant acquired 52,940,000 won, which was withdrawn from the Plaintiff C to Samsung Insurance K agency located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, by transfer from the Plaintiff C to the account under the name of the Defendant.

C. In addition, the defendant around August 17, 2013, while the family members of the deceased I, such as the plaintiff C's dynamics of the plaintiff C, have arranged the deceased I's relics.

Finding the subscription design and insurance premium receipt of the insurance product described in the subsection, and asking the defendant about the background, the plaintiff, etc. was stolen with the subscription design and insurance premium receipt owned by the deceased I by using the gap in which the surveillance of the plaintiff, etc. was neglected due to the network I's house.

The defendant on April 19, 2016 above A.

subsection (b),

The facts constituting the crime indicated in the paragraph were sentenced to a conviction of the Daejeon District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 2153, and the Defendant appealed as Daejeon District Court 2016No1096, but was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal on May 17, 2017.

The defendant is the Supreme Court.