Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the sentence of two years of suspended execution in August, the fine of ten million won, and the surveillance of protection) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant shows an attitude against the recognition of each of the instant crimes, the fact that the Defendant waivers the collection of the remaining claims, and that the said obligor does not want the punishment against the Defendant by agreement with a large number of debtors, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

However, the instant crime is likely to be criticized in light of the legislative intent of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. to establish a sound financial order and the Protection of Financial Users by eradicating the harmful effects of illegal bond business, as it received interest from a person with low credit rating while running a loan business without registration.

The operating period of the instant unregistered loan business is not short, and the amount of the loan is considerably large.

The Defendant had the record of criminal punishment several times prior to the crime of this case.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant case’s records and the trial process, it appears that the sentence imposed by the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too heavy or unfluent.