A little more than an hour after the crash, Wung accepted an insurance policy for his car through a police insurance subsidiary company, Lumley.
Then the next day he rang the police insurance online claim and made a false declaration, by suggesting the accident occurred that day.
An investigation, however, quickly proved the incident occurred the day prior.
When challenged by an investigator, Wung initially refuted the allegation but under questioning admitted he had made up his claim.
Lumley cancelled the then cop's insurance policy and refused to pay the claim.
As a result of the fraud, police charged Wung with attempting to make available an online insurance claim capable of deriving a pecuniary advantage on May 5.
He first appeared in court on May 18 and pleaded guilty immediately, before he was sentenced earlier this month.
"This has all the hallmarks of somebody who [was] placed in a stressful and difficult situation, and I have information concerning Mr Wung's then financial commitments," Judge David Sharp said when sentencing the former policeman.
Wung had spent some seven years studying, costing $100,000.
"He wrongly and foolishly felt that he should try to obtain an insurance payment that he was not able to legitimately have," the judge said.
"For an insurance company the reception of fraudulent claims is a matter of great concern."
Wung had also made an application for a discharge without conviction, in a bid to move on with a new career as a health professional.
In his affidavit, Wung regarded himself as a law-abiding and upstanding citizen with no previous criminal record.
Police opposed the application and said: "There is a great deal of trust required in our police officers and that strict honesty is something which is required of all police officers and to go outside that was a significant breach of duty on the part of Mr Wung."
But the judge felt a conviction would outweigh the severity of Wung's crime.
"The conduct here, while it involves a breach of trust, involves someone under financial pressure," Judge Sharp said.
"What appears [to be] a poorly thought out and rash decision has already had significant consequences that do not relate to the conviction, but relate to his conduct. If he were to be seen as someone who was unsuitable to practice as a chiropractor as a result of this action, that would be something in my view which is a significant consequence of a conviction.
"It is not inconceivable that Mr Wung may face financial pressure if he is endeavouring to be a chiropractor, but it does seem to have been a particular instance of misconduct, rather that a character trait.
"People can make mistakes. If they make a single mistake then I would be loath to see that hold them back significantly. In the end it comes down to the point that I take the view that Mr Wung is someone who is unlikely to offend again."
Judge Sharp did not order any community work or impose a fine and hoped Wung could "apply himself in the spirit" of his new occupation.
