All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defendant A: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, 1 through 11, 15 through 20, 15 through 20, 38 months of imprisonment, 38 months of imprisonment, 10 months of imprisonment, H, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service order, 120 hours of defendant I: imprisonment of 8 months, 8 months of suspended execution, 8 months of imprisonment and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged in this case against Defendant A and E need to consider equality in the case of concurrent crimes with the case where the judgment has already become final and conclusive and the case where the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes. Defendant G was responsible for supporting each of the above Defendants’ respective families. Defendant G was actually involved in the crime of real estate mortgage loan, and the amount of damage would be less than the amount of the loan when purchasing the real estate provided under the name of the name of the loan and exercising the security right established on each of the above real estate. Defendant H did not take part in other fraudulent crimes than the crime of card-type tin. Defendant H did not take part in the crime of fraud; Defendant I and L took part in part in part in the crime of this case; Defendant I and L took part in the name of the loan; Defendant I took part in the obligation to lend the loan under one’s name in the crime of this case; and employed by other joint defendants as an employee of the company operated by the other joint defendants.

However, the Defendants committed fraud by systematically using the method of real estate security loan, card tin, automobile security loan, business starters loan, and credit loan of the lending company.

In light of the fact that the amount of damage caused by each fraud is considerable, and the effect of each lending contract concluded by creating false credit information on the whole society, there is a need to strictly punish each damage financial institution.

The Defendants’ instant case.