2. The judgment of the Defendants is the primary offender, the F Saemaul Treasury returned the refund money to some of the victims to restore the original state to its original state, the Defendants did not have any benefit from personal receipt through the instant crime, and all of the instant crimes were recognized by the first instance court, etc. favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the employees of financial institutions, which have a foundation for the existence of customer trust, arbitrarily repaid the dormant mutual-aid money with ( bad debt) redemption claim using an opportunity to easily access the computer system, and the liability for the crime is not weak. The Defendants committed the crime of this case repeatedly against many victims, and the victims are ordinary people who subscribed to mutual-aid insurance with trust in the F Saemaul Cooperatives and the Saemaul Federation Federation, and the Defendants committed the crime of this case by using professional knowledge, even though they demand more ethical awareness than ordinary people and compliance consciousness as employees of financial institutions.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the background of the instant crime, the age of the Defendants, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.