2. The judgment of the Defendants reflects their mistakes, Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment, and Defendant B’s health is not good, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, the crime of this case is a serious violation of the legislative intent of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users with the aim of establishing sound financial transaction order and protecting debtors who lack economic power by regulating the interest rates, etc. of credit service providers.

In addition, the Defendants are not likely to engage in credit business by lending KRW 77,50,000 to 36 times and receiving interest equivalent to 220%.

Defendant

B, despite the fact that he had been punished twice for the same crime, he again committed the crime of this case.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, details and details of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since all of the defendants' appeals are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, Article 19(2)3 and Article 8(1) of the former Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (amended by Act No. 12156, Jan. 1, 2014) concerning criminal facts of the lower judgment is obvious that “Article 19(2)3 and Article 8(1) of the former Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users” is a clerical error in the “Article 19(2)3 and Article 8(1) of the former Act, so it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(