2. The Defendants, in collusion with N, receive interest exceeding the interest rate limit while running a lending business by making use of the vehicle as security, and the Defendant A kept the stolen vehicle or the stolen goods acquired or embezzled by occupational negligence. In light of the contents and results of each crime, the crime is not good in light of the period and frequency of the crime, the amount of interest received, and so on.

In addition, during the period of repeated crime, Defendant A, and E are likely to commit each crime during the period of probation, and Defendant C is likely to be subject to criticism.

On the other hand, however, the defendants showed the attitude of reflecting all their mistakes, and the defendants have no record of criminal punishment for the same crime.

In addition, all the defendants were employed by the lending company in the decision of the court below, and they did not lead each crime.

Considering the aforementioned circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the Defendants, the circumstances after the commission of each of the instant crimes, the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, it does not seem that the lower court’s each sentence imposed on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.