The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant could not be deemed to have lent money in this case for business purposes, although it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant has lent money.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The main sentence of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users provides that "credit business" means a business of lending or brokerage thereof (including the delivery of money by bill discount, transfer for security, or by other similar means, and the brokerage of giving and receiving of money; hereinafter "loan"). Here, "business" means a continuous repetition of the same act. Whether it constitutes such a business shall be determined in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as whether a loan or brokerage is repeated or continued, whether a business is conducted, the purpose or scale of such act, the number of times of such act, and the mode of time, regardless of whether a person or material facility required therefor is provided.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below held that the Defendant’s charge of this case constitutes “business” such as lending of money, etc. in light of the aforementioned legal principles, and held that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge it and no other evidence exists. Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the Defendant was not found to have provided money loans in addition to the Defendant’s loan to two persons (D and C) at the time of the instant case, and (ii) the interest rate of the Defendant’s loan applicant C is relatively high.