logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.04.13 2016노3330
사기
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B (excluding the rejection part of the application for compensation) is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

Reasons

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that each of the punishments against the Defendants (two years of imprisonment; one year and six months of imprisonment; and one year and six months of imprisonment; and ten months of imprisonment) of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that Defendant A’s judgment was examined, that Defendant A’s health condition was not good enough to undergo certain medical treatment due to the actual disease.

However, in light of the fact that there is no change in circumstances that the court below and the punishment are different in the first instance court, such as the fact that the insurance fraud obtained unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, such as the crime in this case, would undermine the purpose of the insurance system, which covers a reasonable diversification of risks, the damage to many good insurance subscribers, and then ske the foundation of the insurance system, etc., repeated the same crime over a considerable period of time, and the amount of the damage is highly high, and the victims do not agree with the victims, and there is no change in circumstances that may be different from the judgment below, and the defendant's age, family relation, economic situation, circumstances and motive leading to the crime, circumstances after the crime, and all other matters concerning the sentencing as shown in the records and changes in this case, the punishment of the court below is reasonable.

The above defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment on Defendant B, and recognize that the crime of this case by Defendant B is not likely to have been committed as an insurance fraud, and that there is a substantial amount of damage.

However, in full view of the fact that the damage recovery is a total of 84% and agreed with the victims by paying the amount acquired by deceit in the case of a party, the health status of the above defendant, the fact that there is no criminal record other than once of a fine, age, family relation, economic situation, circumstances leading to the crime and motive, circumstances after the crime, and all other matters concerning the sentencing as shown in the records and changes of the case.

arrow