The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (the probation three years in prison in October, the probation one year, and the community service order of 160 hours in 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below recognized the defendant's mistake, the defendant is the first offender who is not subject to criminal punishment, and some finance users submitted a written application to the effect that they do not want the defendant's punishment. However, the crime of this case is highly necessary in light of the legislative purpose of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users for the purpose of establishing sound financial transaction order and protecting financial users who lack economic power by regulating interest rates, etc. of unregistered credit service providers, and the crime of this case is committed in violation of the restriction rate for a long period of one year. The defendant is not sufficient to be punished by credit business that violated the restriction rate for a long time. The defendant was punished by only E who was originally in charge of loan business and attempted to avoid his punishment. In addition, considering the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the age, character, and environment of the defendant, etc., the punishment of the court below against the defendant is too unfair. Thus, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.