The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”), Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides, “The term “credit business” means a business of lending money (including lending money by bill discount, transfer for security, or by any other similar means), or a business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement, from a person who has registered credit business pursuant to Article 3, or a credit financial institution, by acquiring claims from a loan agreement,

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 Supreme Court Decision 201Do1985 Decided March 29, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1985). The lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant lent money to the highest interest rate of 5% per month through O, D, etc. by means of general credit service providers, such as lending money to the highest interest rate of 5%, deducting the advance interest, etc., and D andO stated that the Defendant repeatedly lent money from an investigative agency to a large number of persons in the first instance trial and received interest, etc., and there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement. There is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement, the Defendant lent money several times to those who are not well aware of it over a long period, the Defendant was to receive high interest rate, and the Defendant primarily lent money in the name of a third party, not in its own name, and the Defendant is to receive reimbursement.