2. The instant case pertains to a case in which the Defendants conspired to operate a unregistered lending company, and the Defendants breached the limitation on interest rate by receiving interest exceeding the legal autonomy of the lending customers.

Defendant

B is an initial crime with no criminal history, and Defendant A has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and the Defendants’ entire acknowledgement of and reflects on the facts of the crime are favorable to the Defendants (the Defendants asserted that the net AH actually led the instant loan business and brought most of the proceeds to the Defendant. However, in light of the period of de facto marriage with Defendant A and the fact that the net AH continued to engage in the loan business for a considerable period of time after the net AH died, it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion. However, considering the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendant was running the loan business without registration and the loan business for a considerable period of time, the frequency and amount of the loan business, and the fact that the actual gains from the loan business are expected to be reasonable, the court below’s decision did not seem to have been too unfair, considering the circumstances that were unfavorable to the Defendants, such as the age and age of the Defendants, sex, home environment, motive, motive and consequence of the crime, and the following circumstances.

In the end, the defendants' argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. Thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable.