2. It is recognized that the Defendants were under the wrong judgment of both the Defendants, and there was no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case; the Defendants’ benefits derived from the instant crime are not much significant; the Defendants’ economic difficulties are in a very difficult situation; and in particular, Defendant B is obliged to care for, and live alone, a three-child who is under the government’s housing benefits and livelihood benefits.

However, the Defendants committed the instant crime continuously and repeatedly for personal interest, and the instant crime is likely to inflict an employment opportunity for Koreans and foreigners having employment qualifications, to interfere with the immigration control of foreigners, and to cause various social problems, such as illegal stay of foreigners, and thus requires corresponding punishment. The instant crime period is not shorter than 4 years and 5 months for Defendant A to commit the instant crime, 13 persons for the illegal stay, 39 persons for the Defendants to jointly commit the instant crime, and 39 persons for the illegal stay who arrange employment, taking into account various circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is not justified.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit.