대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not engage in credit business and did not lend money to E, and the Defendant is not the Defendant but I who lent money to E.
2. Determination
A. First, we examine whether the defendant lent money to E as stated in the judgment below.
E’s statement is consistent with E’s statement, including the following: (a) the content of E’s statement is very specific and detailed, as well as is consistent with the investigation agency to the lower court’s trial; (b) the circumstances acknowledged by other evidence; (c) the Defendant, from June 14, 2012, on the money at issue in this case, entered in the purport of recognizing the execution of a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the creditor, the Defendant, the obligor, the joint and several liability obligor, G, the borrowed money as KRW 6 million; and (d) the Defendant, by deceiving the Defendant and lending the said money, filed a complaint against E on October 10, 2013 by fraud; and (e) the Defendant received interest on the said money from E to the Defendant’s account.
In this context, the court below, who directly observed the form and attitude of E, which engages in the court statement, may sufficiently reliable the credibility of the statement of E, and therefore, it can be recognized that the defendant lent money to E as stated in the court below's decision.
The defendant's specific vindication on this issue is that the amount of KRW 4 million paid by G to I was left to the defendant by G, but G used only 2 hours and returned, and the defendant lent the above money to G without notifying I, and the money was in excess of E, and it was written by E, as above, that I lent the money to E in addition to the amount of KRW 4 million brought by G, KRW 4 million, and was written by the defendant's name. The interest deposited from E was paid to I.