The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, observation of protection, and community service order 200 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant offenses; (b) the Defendant divided his mistake; (c) the amount of the damage was repaid; and (d) the Defendant agreed with the victim taxi company and the fire insurance company in the same department.

On the other hand, insurance fraud needs to be strictly punished in terms of impairing the foundation of the insurance system by impairing the purpose of the insurance system, promoting a speculative spirit, promoting the distribution of reasonable risks, and causing the sacrifice of many subscribers to insurance policies. The fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed such insurance frauds, that the amount of fraud and the repair cost due to the destruction of vehicles exceeds 56 million won in total, and that the Defendant appears to have been actively involved in each of the crimes of this case, that there seems to have been a history of being punished once by a fine for fraud, that there was a history of being punished by a fine for a crime that is a double crime, and that there is a history of being punished by a suspended sentence

In addition, if there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the sentence of the lower judgment, the punishment of accomplices D, the age of the accused, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records and theories of the case, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da36442, Apr. 1, 200).