The appeal is dismissed.

A. The Defendant, at the request of F or E, borrowed money from the F or E for several times, and did not “business” for a monetary loan.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides that “The term “credit business” means a business of lending money (including lending money by bill discount, transfer of security, or any other similar means; hereinafter “loan”) or a business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement from a person who has registered credit business pursuant to Article 3 or a credit financial institution by transfer of claims under a loan agreement and collection thereof.”

Here, the term “business” means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes such act ought to be determined according to social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as lending or brokerage of money, continuity of brokerage, business nature, purpose of the act, size, frequency, mode of time, etc., regardless of whether the act was simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4390 Decided July 12, 2012, etc.). The following circumstances recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendant lent a considerable amount of money to F and E eight times from August 2010 to March 201, as indicated in the annexed crime list of the lower judgment, and (ii) the Defendant received a high interest rate or considerable amount of interest as indicated in the “loan Terms and Conditions column” of the same Table.