2. Although the Defendants appeared to be against the instant crime, the instant crime is limited to the crime of collecting more than 9,00 items of personal information without permission and providing it to an illegal lending business entity, and in particular, providing a large amount of personal information without permission is highly dangerous. Defendant A takes the lead of the instant crime; Defendant C has been prior to the suspension of execution; Defendant C is a crime of aiding and abetting in Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users; Defendant D has the history of being suspended from indictment on the grounds that it was a violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users; Defendant D has the history of being sentenced to suspension of indictment on the grounds that it was against the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users; and in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant crime records, such as the age, character and conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

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