We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

The defendant is the defendant at each interest rate of 1 to 23 set forth in the [Attachment 9] list of crimes in the first instance judgment.

1. The first deliberation type (in the amount of five million won and confiscation) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unfasible.

2. Ex officio determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing.

B. The Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users due to the repeated operation of loan business with no registration multiple times (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”) is a blanket crime; however, the violation of the Act on the Loan Business due to the Violation of Interest Rate Restrictions is in a substantive concurrent relationship by establishing one crime at each act of violation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4229, Jul. 15, 2010). However, in light of the facts constituting the crime in question and the application of the Act, the first instance court recognized the loan business due to the violation of the Interest Rate Restrictions as one crime including all the facts charged of the violation of the Act on the Loan Business due to the violation of the Interest Rate Restrictions, and determined that the violation of the Act on the Loan Business due to the operation of a loan business without registration and the violation of the Act on the Protection of Financial Users was erroneous as having a commercial concurrent relationship with the crime.

(c)

B. According to the record, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on August 18, 2014 at the Busan District Court on the part of his/her superior duties and the head of his/her office, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 26, 2014. The Defendant committed a violation of the Act on the Loan Business due to the violation of the interest rate limitation set forth in No. 1 or No. 23 of the attached Table 9 of the List of Crimes in the judgment of the first instance prior to the said judgment.

The crimes of each crime before and after the final and conclusive judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and crimes of acquisition of goods from the office chief and office chief before and after the final and conclusive judgment are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Punishment prior to a final and conclusive judgment shall be determined in consideration of the equality in cases where a judgment is rendered simultaneously with the crime of acquiring water from the superior branch office of the final and conclusive judgment, and the punishment shall be separately determined for crimes after the final and conclusive judgment.

(d)

Nevertheless, the defendant did not take such measures and sentenced to a single punishment.