2. Although it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant in light of the legislative intent of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users in order to protect financial consumers who are the economically weak and promote the sound development of credit business, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the instant criminal facts; (b) the Defendant appears not to have any criminal history; (c) the Defendant has no penal power; (d) the Defendant has retired from the credit business on the ground of economic losses; (c) the number of days of debt; (d) J and K (the other party to the instant argument that the Defendant would take a preference to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character, character, intelligence and environment; (d) the motive and background of the instant crime; (e) the scale and frequency of transaction without registration; (e) the degree of excess of interest rates; (e) the circumstances after the crime; (e) the victims; and (e) the relationship with the victims; and (e) the relationship with the previous offense, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion that the lower court rendered the instant sentencing is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

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