The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

D In 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment, Defendant E shall be sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant F and G, respectively.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (one year of imprisonment and two years of probation, one year of the community service order, two years of the probation, two years of the probation of the community service order, two years of the probation of the community service order, one year of imprisonment and 2 years of the probation of the community service order, one year and 80 hours of the probation of the community service order, two years of the probation of the probation of the defendant C: one year and six months of the probation of the community service order, two years and six months of the probation of the probation of the community service order, two years of the probation of the community service order of the defendant E: two years of the probation of the community service order of the year and two years of the probation of the probation of the community service order of the latter; two years of the probation of the community service order of the latter; one year and two years of the probation of the community service order of the latter; and two years and six hours of the probation of the probation of the latter; and eight hours of the community service order of the latter).

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendants in collusion with M and operated a lending company without registering the lending business, and the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Restriction Act was higher than that of the Defendants, which violates the legislative intent of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business and the Protection of Financial Users, which is to establish a sound financial transaction order and protect debtors with weak economic power, and thus, the crime liability is not easy in light of the period and frequency of crime, size of loan amount, etc., and Defendant A, D, E, F, and G committed the crime of this case, even though they had been punished for the same crime, and at the same time, committed the crime of this case.

However, the Defendants’ confessions of the instant crime and reflects the Defendants’ mistake in depth, and the Defendants’ employees in charge of accounting and collection of the instant loan business, as well as the Defendants’ actual profits, compared to the size of the loan amount, did not have any significant profits. The Defendants committed the instant crime for livelihood, most of which were committed, but will not further commit the instant crime.

The fact that the defendant B, C, and H are first offenders who have no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and others.