The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In determining whether a prosecutor’s loan of the gist of the grounds for appeal is "business" or not, it is not an important factor to determine whether a borrower is one or not, and whether a separate office was established, but the defendant borrowed a total of 45,400,000 won to E 38 times from August 3, 2007 to October 28, 2010 and received a total of 97,90,000 won. In light of the lending period, the amount and frequency of the lending, the profits acquired by the defendant, etc., it is recognized that the continuity, repetition, business, and profit-making purpose is recognized in lending or brokerage, and therefore, the facts charged in this case is sufficiently convicted, and the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant is engaged in credit business. (1) Around July 23, 2007, the Defendant did not register credit business with the competent Mayor/Do Governor. Around July 23, 2007, the Defendant agreed to lend KRW 1,200,000 to the obligor E with a total of KRW 80,000,000,000,000 for 80,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won is paid to the obligor, and the amount exceeds 9,000,000,000,000 won per annum 38,000,000 from July 23, 207 to July 30, 2010; and (2) A credit service provider is either an individual or a small corporation as prescribed by Presidential Decree.