2. Although the defendants recognized the crime of this case and the period and degree of the defendants' participation in the crime of this case are relatively not more severe, these circumstances seems to have been sufficiently considered in the court below. The crime of causing serious damage to those who are economically poor and imminent by means of telephone loan fraud is not good, and the defendants were sufficiently aware of the illegality of the crime, such as collecting personal information from time to time, such as collecting personal information according to the guide form, etc. according to the use of the name of the defendants as if they were financial institutions of the city, such as "new bank". Considering the equity in punishment with other accomplices, other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case such as the age, character and conduct, environment, the circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., the defendants' above assertion is not reasonable since the court below's punishment is too too unreasonable.

3. Therefore, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.