대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is that the Defendant entered into an investment agreement with G and received a profit distribution, and did not engage in lending, but the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant lent a loan to G, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.
2. The term “business” under the main sentence of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and the Protection of Financial Users means to engage in the business of lending money. Here, the term “business” refers to the continuous repetition of the same act. Whether it constitutes such business” shall be determined in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) whether a loan of money has been repeated; (b) whether a loan of money has been operated or not; and (c) whether a loan of money has been made in a short term under the pretext of investment; and (d) whether a loan of business funds has been received after deducting the money in the name of the commission for investment; and (e) whether a loan of money has been made, regardless of the name or title of the fixed amount payable; and (e) whether a payment was made in addition to delayed use of money and a penalty for such loan of money is recognized as having been made in return for the payment of interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do729, Jul. 21, 2012).
However, the court below duly examined and adopted.