beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant, who is not a normal lawsuit, only claimed insurance money to the damaged insurance company by receiving a diagnosis from G with respect to a non-permanent action, which is not a normal lawsuit, and did not deceiving the damaged insurance company as stated in this part of the facts charged, thereby deceiving the insurance proceeds.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who operates “D” in Pyeongtaek-si C, received the livestock disaster insurance proceeds paid in the event of injury or death and received them.
On January 3, 2011, the Defendant conspired with E, a buyer, and obtained a false contract with the head of E, stating that the milch value F of this ticket was sold for KRW 100,000,000, in collusion with the Defendant, even though the milch value was a normal cattle that was not injured, after combining the above milch cattle’s bridge with a window, the Defendant took three photographs of the milch value, which was cut down on the floor by the window, and sold the above milch value in KRW 100,00,000.
Then, the Defendant submitted the above photograph, false diagnosis and false transaction contract to the victim B corporation, and received KRW 1,301,040 from the above victim H association account (Account Number I) on January 20, 201, and received KRW 1,301,040 from the above victim H association account, and received KRW 1,30,040 from around that time to July 18, 2013, the Defendant acquired KRW 34,15,930, total sum of the total amount of the livestock insurance proceeds of the crime from 23 times in total, as stated in the crime sight table 1,5,7, and 24 of the judgment below from around that time.
2) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, received a false transaction agreement and a false diagnosis from the damaged insurance company.