All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (each of four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendants led to the confession and reflect of the crime, and the fact that there was no previous conviction in the same kind of crime is favorable to the defendants. However, each of the crimes of this case requires strict punishment in light of the legislative intent of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc., Protection of Finance Users, and the Act on Fair Debt Collection in order to protect the ordinary people who are financial users and contribute to the stabilization of the economic life of the people by regulating illegal debt collection and interest rates of credit service providers, and the legislative intent of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc., Protection of Finance Users and the Act on Fair Debt Collection of Claims. The defendants had the records of punishment several times, and the court below seems to have been sentenced to suspended execution in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendants, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendants' age, character and behavior, environment, and the background and result of the crime of this case, etc.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the application of statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

B. It is corrected that the part against Defendant B’s change of “Article 15(1) and Article 9(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” to “Article 15(1) and Article 9 subparag. 1 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act”

.