A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, even though he merely lent money to the above persons on the grounds of friendship C, D, and E, and did not "business" as stated in the facts charged of this case, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

B. In light of the circumstances surrounding which the Defendant lent money to C, D, and E, etc., the lower court’s punishment (two million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users provides that “The term “credit business” means a business of lending money (including granting money by bill discount, transfer for security, or by any other means similar thereto; hereinafter “loan”) or a business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement, which is transferred by a person who has registered his/her credit business pursuant to Article 3 (hereinafter “credit business entity”) or a credit financial institution.”

Here, the term “business” means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes such act ought to be determined in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as lending or brokerage of money, repetition and continuity of brokerage, existence of business, purpose, size, frequency, period, and mode of the act, without relation to whether the act was simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4390 Decided July 12, 2012). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendant repeatedly lent money to C, etc. for a considerable period from 2005 to 2010, and (ii) the Defendant would be paid a high interest rate, and (iii) deducted a considerable amount from the name of the interest.