The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of this case’s sentencing conditions, the sentence of eight months imprisonment with prison labor, which the court below decided against the defendant, is too unreasonable.

2. The instant case pertains to a case involving: (a) the Defendant, working as an insurance designer of an insurance company, concluded a false life insurance contract under the name of another; and (b) the Defendant, as if he concluded a genuine insurance contract, acquired the insurance commission from the insurance company in which the victimized party was involved; (c) the insurance contractor’s insurance premium is paid in the process; and (d) interfered with the audit work by giving heavy weight to the staff in charge of the audit team of the insurance company

The court below sentenced the victim company to be sentenced to imprisonment for August 2, 200 in consideration of the following: (i) under the favorable circumstances for the defendant, the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment; (ii) the confession and reflects the crime of this case; (iii) about KRW 94 million out of the amount of damage caused by the fraudulent act was returned to the victim company with the insurance premium paid by the defendant; and (iv) the amount was deposited more than three times to recover damage; and (iv) under the unfavorable circumstances: (iii) the crime of this case is detrimental to the trust of the insurance transaction and causes unnecessary social expenditure; (iv) the damage amount caused by the fraudulent act of this case is very poor; (v) the victim company did not receive any benefit from the victim company; and (v) the victim company did not have to receive any benefit from the adjustment of contractual relations; (v) the victim company failed to receive the insurance premium paid by having the victim company file a civil petition on behalf of the fraudulent subscriber; and (v) the company's person in charge of conducting the audit business interfere with the investigation business and thereby seriouslying the circumstances.

However, in light of the above unfavorable circumstances recognized by the court below, the defendant is strict.