The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal of this case, the sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, probation, community service order 200 hours, 40 hours of an order to attend a narcotics treatment lecture, and 50,00 won of an additional collection charge) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the defendant misjudgments the defendant's mistake and repents, that the defendant agreed with the victimJ at the investigation stage in relation to the violation of the Fair Collection of Claims Act, and that the defendant's spouse, his/her dependent, his/her dependent, and his/her working hours want to take the defendant's wife against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the Defendant had been 5 times of imprisonment and 7 times of suspended execution, the Defendant committed a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence). Although C and N intentionally have access to the Defendant, the Defendant is liable for committing a crime of purchase, receipt, and medication without brushing their suspicions, and eventually, the Defendant is liable for it. In the case of a violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, it is highly high that the amount exceeds the limited interest rate; the Defendant did not agree with L among the victims of the violation of the Act on the Fair Collection of Claims; and other matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, as indicated in the records and arguments in the instant case, are considered to be too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, where an unregistered credit service provider lends a loan ex officio, the first head of the violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection, etc. of Financial Users in the case of the 2013 Highest Group 1297.