All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 1 year and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unfasible and unfair.

2. The insurance fraud is a crime that imposes a burden on a large number of general insurance subscribers and causes moral hazard to increase social expenses and requires strict punishment. The crime of this case is committed repeatedly over a considerable period from the end of 2009 or from the end of 2010 to the year 2013, and the crime of this case is not good in light of the details and the method of the crime. The defendant A’s fraud amount is more than KRW 100,000,000,000 won and is less than KRW 150,000,000 won, which is disadvantageous to the defendants.

However, in order to maximize the revenue of the insurance premium, the defendants are also responsible for the hospital, etc. that has actively induced false-patients in order to make a confession of criminal facts and reflect the fact of the crime, to sell insurance in duplicate in order to raise the revenue of the insurance premium, and to maximize the revenue of the victims and the hospital that have not been subject to proper follow-up management. Defendant A is the first criminal without any previous conviction, Defendant B has no criminal record exceeding the same criminal record and fine, Defendant A agreed upon both victims and the victims. Defendant B agreed that the victim ING life (referred to as “ING life” among the reasons for sentencing as stated in the judgment of the court below seems to be a clerical error in the judgment of the court below) and the rest of the victims except for the post offices, and that part of the amount paid out by the victim ING life and the post offices

In full view of such circumstances and other circumstances as the Defendants’ age, environment, sexual conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s sentence is too excessive.