The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant lent C a loan of KRW 4 million on August 3, 2011 to C is merely a loan of money upon personal request and does not constitute a loan as a credit service provider.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 4 million imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides that “The term “credit business” means a business of lending money (including providing money by bill discount, transfer of security, or any other similar means; hereinafter “loan”) or a business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement, by being transferred by a person who has registered his/her credit business pursuant to Article 3 (hereinafter “credit business entity”) or a credit financial institution (hereinafter “credit business entity”).”

Here, the term “business” means 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 or brokerage of money, continuity of brokerage, existence of business, purpose of the act, size, frequency, mode of time, etc., regardless of whether the act was simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor.

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant engaged in credit business by continuously and continuously providing a loan without registration with the competent authority, even if the Defendant did not have any personal or physical facilities, such as opening an office for the purpose of credit business, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, and that the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged.