The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted all of the charges of this case on the part of the defendants, although the defendants could sufficiently recognize that they engaged in unregistered loan business as stated in the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

(a) A person who intends to engage in business of lending summarys of facts charged shall register with the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan Autonomous City Mayor, Do Governor, or Special Self-Governing Province branch having jurisdiction over the relevant place of

1) On April 1, 2014, Defendant A did not register a loan business with the competent authorities, and lent KRW 30 million to J, an operator of I stock company (hereinafter “I”) in the French area of Gwangju (hereinafter “I”), around April 1, 2014, and on May 18, 2016, Defendant A lent KRW 8.632 billion in total to J by 239 times as shown in the attached crime list 1.

Accordingly, the defendant is running a unregistered loan business.

2) Defendant B did not register the lending business with the competent authority on October 10, 2014, and lent KRW 250 million to J, an operator, around Gwangju around October 10, 2014, from around October 201 to October 10, 2016, Defendant B lent KRW 15.8 billion in total over 3.28 times as indicated in attached Table 2, as indicated in attached Table 2, to J, and received repayment of KRW 15.595 billion in total.

Accordingly, the defendant is running a unregistered loan business.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendants engaged in a business of lending money only on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in light of the following circumstances, although the Defendants, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, lent money to J, the operator of I and received a part of the money, and in view of the fact that part of the money was paid, but the court below acknowledged the evidence duly adopted and examined by the prosecutor.

It is difficult to recognize otherwise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.