2. The circumstances that the Defendants recognized the instant facts charged and reflected the instant facts charged, the period of participation is shorter than the leading accomplice, and the Defendants mainly committed auxiliary crimes are favorable.

However, the crime of this case committed by the Defendants, in a systematic and planned manner, committed a serious violation of the law of lending business with the aim of collecting high interest rate of 300% per annum and establishing a sound financial transaction order and protecting debtors with weak economic power. In full view of the fact that the period of the crime is long and more than the period of the crime, and other circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is appropriate, and the sentencing judgment by the lower court exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.