The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) it is deemed that the Defendant is running a unregistered credit business, even though it is reasonable to deem that the lower court’s judgment otherwise determined is erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendant and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of credit business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of this part of the facts charged is that “Defendant A, without being registered with the competent authority, engages in credit business as shown in attached Table 1 at the H Motor Vehicle Complex from December 16, 201 to December 6, 201, and received interest exceeding the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act from E during the said period.”

B. The judgment of the court below is that there are evidence that is consistent with this part of the facts charged, such as witness E’s testimony, police statements about E’s testimony, etc., and that E merely borrowed money from Defendant A, and that he is well aware of whether he/she bond, etc.

According to the above evidence, even though Defendant A lent money exceeding KRW 70 million over 19 billion a year to E, Defendant A was deemed to have lent money for the guarantee of principal in the absence of security, etc., and repeated lending of money for the guarantee of principal in the absence of security, etc. Defendant A used money for the purpose of guaranteeing principal. Defendant A used for the trading of used cars in the HA car complex as a person engaged in the trading of used cars and used for the same work, and Defendant A was punished by a fine of KRW 300,000 as a violation of the Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users Act around 209.