All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is that the sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment for each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendants, who led to the confession of the commission of the crime, appears to have a misunderstanding, and there was no record of punishment of the same criminal history and the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment, and that the actual gains acquired by the Defendants’ participation in the commission of the crime considerably less than the amount of damage, and the Defendants’ family members, etc. want to take the Defendant’s wife is favorable to the Defendants.

However, the defendants' participation in the crime of telephone financing fraud committed against many unspecified persons, which resulted in considerable damage to many victims who wish to borrow small amount of loans in order to raise living funds, such as deposit money for lease on a deposit basis.

This has a great impact on society, such as the decline of trust in the telephone finance system, as well as the individual victims.

In light of the fact that the role of the Defendants’ duty to deliver the passbook in the context of the crime, the weight of the crime of telephone finance fraud, the damage caused by the crime is not recovered, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the background of participation in the crime, the means and method of the crime, the age of the Defendants, the sexual conduct, and the family relationship, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit and thus dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.