The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months and fine of 30,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) 1) The Defendant had registered each loan business in the name of B, C, and D and employed the said persons as an employee. As such, the Defendant is not an unregistered credit service provider but an unregistered credit service provider. Thus, Article 19(1)1 and 3 of the Act on Registration of Loan Business and Loan Business, etc., which prohibit non-registered loan business and loan business advertisement of a person other than a credit service provider, does not apply to the Defendant.

2) No. 174 per annum of annexed crime list (1) is a new loan that is separate from the existing loan because the repayment period for the existing loan has been extended.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment and fine of thirty million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Although it is apparent that the annual table (1) No. 217 is a new loan distinct from the existing loan, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendants on this part of the facts charged.

2) Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and fines for 30 million won; imprisonment for 8 months; suspended execution for 2 years; Defendant F, and H: Each of the fines for 2 million won for Defendant G; and fines for 3 million won for Defendant G) that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants is unreasonable.

2. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also made the same assertion in the trial, and the lower court determined that Defendant A was guilty in all of the facts charged, taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

The debtor cannot be deemed as a "expenses for the creation of security interest" under Article 8 (2) of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, and Article 5 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act when the debtor's debt is not fulfilled. Thus, the debtor shall not be deemed as a "expenses for the creation of security interest."