2. Each of the crimes of this case committed by the Defendants in collusion with the victims who are customers of loans without their consent, thereby unfairly deceiving the interest equivalent to KRW 515 million from the victims, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the Defendants did not reach an agreement with the victims, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the Defendants have no record of criminal punishment exceeding fines except for the first head of the crime in the judgment of the court below, the Defendants recognized each of the crimes in this case and reflect their mistakes, and the Defendant returned the interest that the F was unfairly paid from the victims and the delayed damages therefrom to the victims due to each of the crimes in this case, and the actual damages have been recovered. Defendant B retired from the F standing position on January 20, 2010, and the equity should be taken into account when it is judged simultaneously with the crime of fraud, such as computer of the first head in the judgment of the court below against the Defendants.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the degree of the Defendants’ participation in each of the instant crimes, and other circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., each of the punishments imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is deemed appropriate within the scope of the discretion for sentencing.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.