(b) Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

5. G.

Article 19(1)1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides that a person who engages in credit business, etc. without being registered with the competent Mayor/Do Governor under Article 3 of the same Act shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won. The Credit Business Act provides that a person who engages in credit business, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that a person who engages in credit business, etc. shall engage in a business of lending money (including the provision of money by means of bill discount, transfer of security, or any other similar method) (hereinafter “credit Business Act”).

Meanwhile, the legislative purpose of the Credit Business Act is to provide for matters necessary for the registration and supervision of credit business and loan brokerage business and regulate illegal debt collection and interest rates of credit business operators and credit financial institutions, thereby promoting the sound development of credit business and protecting finance users and contributing to the stability of the economic life of the people (Article 1).

In light of the relevant provisions and legislative purpose of the Credit Business Act, the prior meaning of the “loan of money”, the nature and effect of bills discount and transfer of security, etc., it is reasonable to view that the “loan of money” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Credit Business Act, as its conceptual element, must be necessarily included in the act of providing credit by granting money on the premise that at least a certain amount of money should be refunded, regardless of the means or method of transaction, at least in the future.

For the following reasons, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the charge of violating the Credit Business Act on the grounds that there was no proof of crime regarding the Defendants’ violation of the Act among the facts charged against the Defendants. ① Contracts between the Defendants and the clients, such as not pretending to purchase the mobile phone devices from the clients, but actually purchasing the mobile phone devices, constitutes a sales contract, and the Defendants are merely the profits from distribution. ② Defendants and the clients are merely the profits from distribution. ② Defendants and the clients did not specify the terms and conditions of the loan, such as interest and the due date for payment, and do not deem that they borrowed money because they did not receive the return of money later. ③ The Defendant’s payment of the installments of the mobile phone was not directly related to the Defendants’ act, and the amount the clients paid by the Defendants to the clients is irrelevant to the credit or interest

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “loan” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Credit Business Act, on the same purport.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but does not state the grounds for objection to this part in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.

2. Defendant E, F, and G did not submit the appellate brief within the period for submitting the appellate brief, and they did not indicate the grounds for objection in the petition of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Jung-hwa-hwa

Justices Kim Gin-soo