2. In full view of the factors that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 9 million for the same crime on April 19, 2013, including the fact that the Defendant did not register as a credit service provider and received interest in excess of the restriction of the Interest Limitation Act, and that the paid interest did not exceed a maximum of 400% per annum, and that the Defendant repeatedly expressed desire to the obligor on the grounds that the Defendant did not repay debts, and that the sum of the leased amount was not larger than KRW 7 million, and that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 9 million for the same crime on April 19, 2013, the instant crime was committed before the said judgment was rendered, and other various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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

[The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (amended by Act No. 12094, May 2014) shall be amended in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure by correcting “the application of the law” of the judgment of the court below to “the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” in the part “Article 25(1) of the Act on the Collection of Claims.”