All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of unfair) the sentencing of the first instance court on the Defendants (e.g., one year of imprisonment, and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Although the Defendants’ determination is against the Defendants, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the details and degree of the crime; (b) the consideration for the transaction; (c) the circumstances that share a fatal role; (d) the justification of the punishment to prevent the transaction of the mass passbook used for the singishing crime; and (e) other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and criminal record, the first instance sentencing of the Defendants is too unreasonable; and (e) the Defendants’ assertion on

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since all of the appeals are without merit.

However, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is applied.

1. Article 49(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in relation to criminal facts is apparent that the term “Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act” is a clerical error under Article 49(4)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 2

.