A. There is no fact that the defendant has made a business of money exchange.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of three million won, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether an act of mistake of facts constitutes “business” refers to continuing to repeat the same act, regardless of whether the act is simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor, the determination shall be made in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as repetition and continuity of the act, whether the act is business, and the purpose, size, frequency, period, mode, etc. of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do849, Sept. 27, 2013). If a defendant continues to engage in repeated acts with intent to continue to engage in such acts, one act constitutes “one act” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1674, May 10, 207; 88Do1896, Jan. 10, 1989). However, even if the lower court and the first instance court duly accepted and investigated the following circumstances, the defendant, who is recognized as having continued to engage in the money exchange business, by taking account of the following circumstances: (i) the frequency of the Defendant’s intent to continue to use of the money exchange.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, and that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime.

However, the crime of this case is highly harmful to society, such as promoting the spirit of gambling of the people and hindering their sound work consciousness.