The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants conspired to borrow money from the instant lending company to a debtor in the instant parking lot; and (b) forced the debtor who has repaid the principal and interest under the loan agreement to pay a high rate of interest by avoiding the provisions of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and the Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”); and (c) in reality, the obligor I would not return the vehicle if the defective Defendants failed to settle the parking fees by finding out the vehicle in which the principal and interest have been paid.

Even though the debtor I paid parking expenses to the Defendants, the debtor I paid parking expenses to the Defendants.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the facts.

2. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the instant charges on the ground that, unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Act on Loan Business, in order to punish a credit service provider who violated the restriction on the interest rate under the Act on Loan Business, it is insufficient to conclude a loan agreement and demand interest exceeding the restricted interest rate, and only if the debtor I actually borrowed the instant vehicle from the Defendant A as security, and then, on April 1, 2016, he/she can only recognize that the debtor I borrowed the instant vehicle from the Defendant as security, KRW 5 million,20,000,000 from the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that he/she paid the interest exceeding the restricted interest rate.

The judgment of the court below that the debtor I did not pay the parking fee for the instant vehicle to the defendant B in the court of original judgment.

In addition, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just and it is so decided.