The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The person who borrowed land purchase funds from the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and repaid the funds and consulting payment, is not the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), but H (hereinafter “H”).

In addition, as a credit service provider who completed the registration of a loan business, the Defendant received interest within the scope of the permitted interest rate under law, and the exceeding portion is not interest but interest, so it does not receive interest exceeding the restricted interest rate.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. 1) We examine ex officio the Defendant’s grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

The Defendant is a person who runs a loan business with the trade name of lending A, with the purport that the prosecutor lent a loan to H for selective criminal facts in the trial.

Where a credit service provider lends a loan to a small corporation prescribed by Presidential Decree, the interest rate shall not exceed 34.9% per annum.

Nevertheless, on June 25, 2015, the Defendant loaned KRW 1.7 billion to H Co., Ltd. at the place of a certified judicial scrivener office located in Ischeon-si, and received KRW 2.4 billion in total as principal and interest on September 1, 2015, and received KRW 107.4 billion in interest at a rate exceeding the above restriction rate, and received KRW 340 million in interest at a rate exceeding the above restriction rate,” and the Defendant filed an application for amendment of a bill of indictment with the purport that “the Defendant was granted KRW 107.4 billion in interest at a rate exceeding the above restriction rate,” and the lower judgment was no longer maintained as the subject of the

2) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: Provided, That in addition to the aforementioned grounds for reversal ex officio, the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles still are subject to the judgment of this court,

A) In relation to who borrowed money from the Defendant, the lower court’s determination is as follows: (i) “AF is 10 parcel of land, including 21,457 square meters of I forest in Ischeon-si; and (ii) the instant land “D”.