2. The judgment is a relatively small amount that the Defendant lent in excess of the statutory limit interest rate, and the acquired profits appears to have little little, and the Defendant has no criminal record for the same kind of offense, etc. favorable to the Defendant.

However, when a credit service provider receives interest exceeding the statutory limit interest rate, the suffering and damage suffered by ordinary ordinary people who are economically weak, the lower court appears to have reduced the amount of fine prescribed in the summary order by sufficiently taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and there is no change of circumstances that may be additionally considered in the trial. In full view of the overall sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including equity in sentencing and sentencing other cases similar to this case, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.