The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant merely operated a separate credit business with the phone number of the superior obligor from C, which is the total liability of the instant lending company, and did not instruct C with regard to the organization and operation of the instant lending company, nor obtained profits from the instant lending company.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, who is an accomplice, has not consented to the police interrogation protocol (Evidence Nos. 67,68,114) of the police officers Nos. 3, 4, and 7 on E, which is the accomplice, each of the above interrogation protocol is inadmissible pursuant to Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, the Defendant’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant was aware of the above fact from K (L) and M (N)” in the E’s statement in the lower court, is a re-statement and is not admissible as evidence pursuant to Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the lower court’s adoption as evidence is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on admissibility of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The loan company of this case is merely an illegal group operated by the Defendant, and it cannot be deemed a continuous combination with the organization, and thus does not constitute an organization for the purpose of committing an offense as provided in Article 1

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination

Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the facts to be prosecuted shall be specified" as the reasons to be specified in the conviction, so the omission of the facts constitutes "when the reasons for the judgment are not attached" under Article 361-5(11) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The lower court erred by omitting part of the attachment of the attached Table (1) and (2) as indicated in the “criminal facts” column, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is greater.