Supreme Court Orders Retrial in 'Golf Hole-in-One Insurance Fraud' Case

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A defendant who was sentenced to a fine for attaching a canceled receipt during the process of claiming 'hole-in-one insurance money'?which compensates for expenses such as purchasing souvenirs and celebratory dinners after a hole-in-one at a golf course?will be retried.

On the 6th, the Supreme Court Division 1 (Presiding Justice No Taeak) announced that it overturned the original ruling that sentenced Mr. A to a fine of 2 million won on charges of violating the Special Act on the Prevention of Insurance Fraud and remanded the case to the Ulsan District Court.

Previously, Mr. A was prosecuted on charges of submitting false receipts for part of the expenses claimed after hitting a hole-in-one shot at a golf course in Miryang-si, Gyeongnam Province, in 2013, receiving a total of 5 million won from the insurance company. He had been enrolled in insurance since 2012 that compensated up to 5 million won for incidental expenses incurred from a hole-in-one during golf games. Mr. A submitted receipts totaling approximately 5.5 million won at the time, but the prosecution pointed out that receipts worth 880,000 won were canceled, and only 580,000 won was actually recharged.

Article 8 (Insurance Fraud) of the current Special Act on the Prevention of Insurance Fraud, enacted in 2016, stipulates that "Anyone who obtains insurance money or causes a third party to obtain insurance money through insurance fraud shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of up to 50 million won."

Mr. A argued in court that it was a simple mistake, but the first and second trials ruled that "it is difficult to see it as a mistake" and sentenced him to a fine of 2 million won. This was because the difference between the canceled payment amount and the actual payment amount was significant, and it was hard to accept the act of submitting only the canceled receipt without shredding or separately storing it.

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. It stated that applying the Special Act on the Prevention of Insurance Fraud, enacted in 2016, to an incident that occurred in 2013 and sentencing a guilty verdict was incorrect. The court said, "The original trial violated the principle of legality and the non-retroactivity of penal laws, which affected the judgment."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.