The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to running unregistered credit business), the Defendant borrowed money more than seven times every five years at the active request of the LAC cooperation foundation (see, e.g., evidence records 8,222 to 8,227) and the Defendant did not engage in lending as “business”. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles mean "business of lending money, or business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement from a person who has registered a credit business or a credit financial institution, or from a credit financial institution" (main sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users). The term "business" in this context means continuing to repeat the same act, and whether it constitutes such act shall be determined in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as whether a loan of money or brokerage has been repeated or continued, whether a business has been conducted, whether the act was conducted, the purpose, size, frequency, and mode of the act, regardless of whether the act was simply equipped with human or physical facilities necessary therefor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8449, Sept. 27, 2013). The Defendant denied this part of the facts charged that the Defendant recognized this part of the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, and did not engage in a loan to the court of the lower court. However, the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence reveals the following circumstances, namely, ① the period during which the Defendant lent money to LUB cooperation foundation and received interest.