All appeals filed by A, B and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. Defendant A, B, and C (B) sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: 10 months of probation, 2 years of community service order, 160 hours of community service order, Defendant B: imprisonment in August, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service order, Defendant C: imprisonment in October, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, and 200 hours of community service order) are too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfairness) sentenced by the court below to the above Defendants D, Defendant D, and E (the two years of suspended execution in August, respectively, and the community service order 160 hours in the community service order) are too unfluent and unfair.

2. We examine the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, B, C, and Prosecutor.

Each of the instant offenses pertains to: (a) the Defendants, who was an employee of the N Credit Information Company, carried out large amounts of personal information of credit card companies customers from outside and provided it to H; and (b) the Defendants, who were engaged in loan brokerage business or loan business of financial institutions, knowingly, were aware of such fact; (c) 100,000 personal information for two occasions between the police officers of August 2012 and the first police officers of January 2013; (d) 29,000 personal information for two times on February 2013; (e) the Defendant C was provided with personal information from February 2013 to August 2013 to the police officers; and (e) the Defendant’s personal information from February 2013 to August 30, 2013 to the public interest and protection of personal information; and (e) Defendant D was provided with personal information under the name of the first police officers of May 13, 2013 to the public interest and protection of personal information.