2. From the fourth trial date of the lower court, the Defendants are all aware of and reflect on the instant crime from the fourth trial date of the lower court; all the Defendants are first offenders who have no criminal history; Defendant A prepared a notarial deed to jointly and severally guarantee the amount borrowed by G, the spouse of the former spouse before the divorce, which led to the instant case; Defendant A currently was subject to seizure and collection of the benefits, and thus has failed to receive most of the benefits; Defendant A was able to repay the guaranteed amount; Defendant A was divorced from G due to a claim and obligation between G and H; Defendant A was under a disadvantage such as being subject to disciplinary action due to the instant crime; Defendant B was under a public official’s disadvantage, such as being subject to the instant crime; Defendant B lent KRW 320,500,000 to G at an annual rate of 30%; Defendant A received KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 won, and Defendant A and his spouse’s remaining spouse were still subject to collection order; Defendant A and his spouse’s money were still recovered through the collection order.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was intended to infringe the interests and trust of genuine individual rehabilitation creditors by having the Defendants perform the compulsory execution procedure by force, and by abusing the individual rehabilitation procedure to make repayment of false claims possible.