All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) The statement of misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Insurance Fraud as stated in paragraph (1) of Article 2 of the decision of the court below is not reliable, and the receipt by the Defendant of KRW 9,728,250, which is a part of the insurance money, was made

The Defendant received a written confirmation from Q Q to deliver it to R, and did not know whether the amount stated in the written confirmation of entry was unfilled, and there was no conspiracy to commit R and crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the facts.

(2) The sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) fraud described in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, this part of the facts charged is that A and M drafted a false shipment certificate and a false breeding log, and deceiving the employees in charge of the victimized company, and the Defendant merely gave advice to A and M about a normal way to receive a large amount of insurance proceeds, and did not make a false preparation of A, M and the above documents, and did not know the fact that the above documents were false.

Therefore, the defendant conspiredd to commit a crime A, M and fraud.

or through the essential contribution, the functional control of the act cannot be deemed to have been achieved.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on joint principal offenders.

(B) The fraud described in Section 3(d)(1) of the decision of the court below, which is supported by this part of the facts charged, cannot be believed as not being specific and consistent. The Defendant’s receipt of money from AS does not constitute a payment for false insurance proceeds. At that time, the Defendant calculated the volume of closed death by adding AS’s estimated shipment volume to 8,000 ma of the total shipment volume stated in the measurement certificate received from AS 22,000.