The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and for one year and six months, respectively.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the overall circumstances of this case, each sentence (for defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment with prison labor; 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor) sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too unreasonable.

In light of the common sentencing grounds for the Defendants, the so-called “wishing” crime, such as the instant crime, committed on an organized and planned basis for many and unspecified persons, is likely to undermine the safety and reliability of financial transactions and cause serious inequality and danger to the entire society. As the criminal law becomes more intelligent, the social harm caused by the inter-victiming of victims is increasing.

In particular, there are many cases where those who are economically weak who are unable to obtain a loan from a financial institution become victims, and since the scope of damage is differentiated and neglected, as well as the structural characteristics that are not easy to recover damage, the defendants cannot be exempted from severe criminal punishment.

Defendant

A was proposed to commit the instant crime from G and operated the first call center that performs the role of receiving all personal information necessary for loans from victims.

Although personal information should be collected at the first call center and transferred to the second call center, it can be completed by borrowing the loan in the name of the actual victims, and transferring the loan to the Daegu Bank under the name of the Agricultural Cooperatives deposit and investment, the role and the degree of participation of the above defendant was considerably deep.

Defendant

A has purchased and supplied radio Internet sharing facilities that make it difficult to trace spophones, passbooks, and A, and furthermore, the possibility of criticism is very high since A has operated the second call center.

Although there are such unfavorable circumstances, it seems that Defendant A is against the fact that Defendant A is aware of all mistakes, and that the acquired profits are not significant.