The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) Any person who operates an unregistered credit business or credit service brokerage business shall file for registration with the Mayor/Do Governor;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without registering a credit business with the competent authority from July 1, 2010 to September 14, 2012, operated credit business with interest of 62% per annum or 64% per annum to E and F without registering with the competent authority in the wife population D from July 1 to September 14, 2012.

(b) Where an unregistered credit service provider provides a loan to any unregistered credit service provider, the maximum interest rate on the loan agreement shall not exceed 30 per annum;

Nevertheless, the Defendant lent KRW 26 million to E, received interest of KRW 64% per annum by July 30, 2012 and received interest of KRW 1.4% per annum by July 30, 2012, and lent KRW 5 million to F on May 15, 2012.

9. By the 14th day of each month, 260,000 won received 62% interest per annum.

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 that engages in lending money (including lending money by bill discount, transfer of security, or any other similar means) or a business that engages in the registration of credit business in accordance with Article 3 or a business that collects claims arising from a loan agreement, by acquiring them from a credit financial institution.”

Here, the term “business” means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes such act ought to be determined in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as lending or brokerage of money, continuity of brokerage, existence of business nature, purpose and size, frequency and type of the act, regardless of whether the act was simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4390, Jul. 12, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view the foregoing.