The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The facts charged in this case

A. Although a person who intends to engage in unregistered credit business should register with the competent Do Governor, the Defendant, without the registration of the competent Do Governor on March 2009, borrowed KRW 500,000 from the lender D and received interest of KRW 700,000 per month from the lender D within the limit of 102 in Yang-si, Yang-si, 2009.

B. The Defendant received 168% interest rate exceeding 30% of the annual interest rate by borrowing KRW 5 million from D at the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph, and by paying interest of KRW 700,000 per month to D at the same time and place.

2. The main text of Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the former Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users (amended by Act No. 9344, Jan. 21, 2009) provides that “credit business” means lending or brokerage thereof (including delivery of money by bill discount, transfer of security, or other similar means, and brokerage of receiving and receiving money; hereinafter “loan”).

Here, the term “business” refers to continuing to repeat the same act, and the determination of whether it constitutes such a business ought to be made in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as lending of money or repeated continuity of brokerage, business nature, purpose and scale of such act, and purpose and scale, frequency, period, and manner of such act, regardless of whether it is simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1985, Mar. 29, 2012; 2007Do11068, Feb. 29, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, as evidence showing that the Defendant engaged in the credit business at the time of the instant case, D’s statements in the police and the court are almost little in place, but D’s statements in this court are “10 years ago.”