The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing the fact that the Defendant borrowed money to B and received a large amount of interest from B as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have operated a business of lending money as a business of lending money, on the ground that it was merely a fact that he was aware of B while preparing for returning to the rural community around 2013 and lent money collected from B as the funds for returning to the rural community.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the facts charged on a different premise.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles provide that "credit business" in the main sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the "Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users" means a business of lending money (including lending money by bill discount, transfer of security, or any other similar method) or a business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement from a person who has registered a credit business pursuant to Article 3 or a credit financial institution. Here, "business" means continuing to repeat the same act. Whether such act constitutes "business" should be determined in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, regardless of whether the person or material facilities required therefor are simply equipped (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4390, Jul. 12, 2012).