A. In fact, the Defendant, who was aware of the fact, has lent a dynasium to the dynas who were well aware of the fact, and there is no fact that he lent money to many and unspecified persons.

In addition, the defendant did not have any advertisement on the lending act, and there is no office in relation to the lending act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted that the aforementioned grounds of appeal are identical to the assertion of mistake of facts.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion by finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's act of lending was sufficiently recognized as a business by taking account of the evidence in its holding.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) C was present as a witness at the court below and stated to the effect that C was introduced by the court to raise the number of days for the purpose of creating employee's good faith while conducting funeral services for about 16 years (No. 104, 117 of the trial record), and that C was consistently borrowing money from the defendant while operating a restaurant or a store for about 16 years (No. 105 of the trial record), and (ii) C agreed to borrow money several times from the defendant in 201 and to give interest on the fourth or fifth part of the month.

The statement was made (105 pages of the trial record), the defendant's specific statement that it had been maintained such high interest until before offering the house located in Gyeonggi-do L as security (105 pages of the trial record), and the defendant's own complaint filed a complaint against D.