A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The Defendant merely introduced G et al. to S et al., and did not have conducted a loan prior to “business”, and there is no fact that the Defendant was engaged in a non-registered loan business in collusion with G et al.

2) The Defendant did not establish a gambling place in collusion with F, etc. for profit.

B. The sentence of first deliberation on sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the main text of Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and the Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”) refers to a business of lending money (including the provision of money by means of bill discount, transfer security, or any other similar method) or a business of collecting claims from a credit financial institution by transfer under a loan agreement.

“.......”

In this context, “business” means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes the same shall be determined in accordance with the social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., repeated and continued lending of money or brokerage, whether the act was conducted, whether the act was conducted, and the purpose, size, frequency, period, and manner of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8449, Sept. 27, 2013). (B) In full view of the foregoing legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance and the first instance, the Defendant, in collusion with G, etc., and without registering it with the competent administrative agency.