The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants led to the commission of the crime; (b) the victims and the Defendant agreed to the commission of the crime (the Defendant G is recognized as an additional agreement and deposit in the first instance trial); (c) the Defendants committed the crime of this case on a systematic basis continuously and repeatedly; (d) the degree of involvement in the crime of this case was significant; (c) the Defendants in the fraud organization is not sufficient to take the method of fraud; and (d) the crime of fraud is ultimately causing damage to the trade of the middle and the second and second st knife; and (e) the Defendants’ age, sexual behavior and environment; (e) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment of the Defendants cannot be deemed to be unfair because the sentence against the Defendants is too excessive.

3. If so, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. Thus, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[1] Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act”) provides that one of the largest shareholders of a financial company shall examine the requirements for maintaining eligibility, such as whether the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, are in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 32(6) of the Act provides that a person who concurrently commits a violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes provided for in paragraph (1) and other offences shall be tried and sentenced separately, notwithstanding Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Of the grounds for the punishment of this case, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in accordance with Articles 5 and 27(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that a person who is the largest shareholder of the financial company shall acquire the issued shares of the financial company and shall acquire the issued shares of the major shareholder (Article 2(6) of the Act.