All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the portion of a non-registered loan business, Defendant C is registered under the name of his spouse, and Defendant D is registered under the name of his spouse pursuant to the Act on the Registration of Loan Business and the Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”), and is jointly engaged in a loan business with his spouse, Defendant C is guilty of the above Defendants, even though it does not constitute a case where a loan business is conducted without registration, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. As to the part of the receipt of interest exceeding the interest rate, KRW 1.2 billion paid by the Defendants to M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) is not a loan, but a loan. KRW 1.5 million per day received from M is not an interest, and KRW 122,276,712 of the agreement between KRW 200,000 and KRW 87,000 for the 200,000,000 was made by the Defendant’s appropriation. As such, since the Defendants corrected the error in the calculation by the proof of the content after the Defendants, the interest corresponding thereto is not paid, and even if the Defendants

However, according to the loan business law, such compromise is null and void under the private law, and it cannot receive interest exceeding the interest rate by the shocking party. Thus, even though the Defendants’ act cannot be deemed to constitute a violation of the law on the loan business due to the receipt of excess interest, it is not subject to punishment, the judgment below convicting the Defendants otherwise, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below concerning Defendant C and D’s non-registered loan businesses, in particular, the police interrogation protocol (Evidence Nos. 3, 45, 58 pages) against H and J (Evidence Nos. 3, 45, 58 pages), Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant C, and Defendant D is the spouse of his/her spouse, and it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant D actually engaged in its loan business without being registered in his/her spouse’s name.

The above Defendants are loan businesses.