Violation of the Fair Collection of Claims Act, Fraud

1. Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users;

(a) The point of unregistered credit business;

피고인은 누구든지 대부업을 영위하고자 하는 사람은 관할관청에 대부업 등록을 하여야 함에도 불구하고, 2007. 3.경부터 2011. 1.경까지 사이에 부산 해운대구 ☆동 부근에 있는 ' ' 사무실에서 별지 범죄일람표(1) 기재와 같이 당국에 등록을 하지 아니하고 대부업을 영위하였다.

(b) the point of exceeding the restrictions;

The Defendant could not receive interest exceeding 30% per annum, which is the limitation interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, when a unregistered credit service provider makes a loan. However, around March 11, 2010, the Defendant borrowed 7.5 million won, deducting 2 million won from the pre-paid interest and 5 million won from the 'office located in the Busan Shipping Daegu-gu, Busan, and then received 3.19% interest per annum from thisC, which was received as interest every month.

In addition, from March 19, 208 to September 11, 2010, the Defendant lent money exceeding the interest limit on 15 occasions in total, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (1) 69, 74, 98, 195, 203, 209, 215, 218, 220, 227, 230, 232, 232, 236, 239, and 250.

2. 채권의 공정한 추심에관한법률위반 채권추심자는 채권추심과 관련하여 채무자 또는 관계인을 폭행·협박·체포 또는 감금하거나 그에게 위계나 위력을 사용하는 행위를 하여서는 아니됨에도 불구하고, 피고인은 2010. 11. 초 12:00경 부산 연제구 □동에 있는 ■ 커피숍 앞에 주차하고 있던 자신의 SM5 승용차 안에서, 채무자인 피해자 이C(37세)에게 "휴대폰으로 아는 사람들에게 전화하여 돈을 빌려서 당장 3,300만원과 이자를 갚아라, 돈을 갚기 전에는 못 간다, 돈을 갚지 않으면 너 죽이고 나도 확 죽어버리겠다."라며 주먹으로 피해자가 앉아 있는 조수석 의자를 때리며 마치 피해자의 신체에 어떠한 위해를 가할 것처럼 겁을 주고 같은 날 18:00경 부산 해운대구 △동에 있는 ▲ 앞 노상까지 약 6시간에 걸쳐 피해자를 위 승용차에서 내리지 못하도록 하여 감금하였다.

In addition, from that to January 20, 201, the Defendant committed an act of debt collection using force to the victim, who is the debtor, in relation to debt collection nine times, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (2).

3. Fraud;

(a) co-offenders with crimes around December 21, 2006 - Kim C1, and Jeju 2;

The defendant, who was aware of his knowledge, intentionally caused a traffic accident with Kim C1, C2, and then planned to receive insurance money and obtain insurance money by fraud.

이에 피고인은 2006. 12. 21. 01:10경 자신이 운전하는 ○○바 ○○호 다이너스티 택시에 김C1을 태운 후 해운대구 ☆동 ▽ 사거리 부근으로 이동한 다음 주C2 운행의 ○마 ○○호 마티스 승용차의 뒤를 따라서 진행하였다.

Note C2, while he was aware of the fact that the left turn signal from the above shooting distance exceeded the vehicle stop line and was going to enter the stop line again, he pretended that the above taxi was shocked by negligence, and intentionally shocked the front part of the above cab with the front side of the above MT car.

이후 주C2는 같은 날 01:36경 피해자인 ▼ 주식회사에 전화하여 사고 담당자에게 위와 같이 업무상 과실로 사고가 발생한 것처럼 사고신고를 접수하고, 피고인과 김C1은 특별한 부상을 입은 사실이 없음에도 해운대 정형외과에 요추염좌 등을 이유로 입원하여 치료를 받았다.

On December 22, 2006, the Defendant, in collusion with Kim Da1 and Jeju 2, by deceiving the staff in charge of the above damaged company, and around December 22, 2006, the Defendant received 2,797,200 won in total from the victimized company by having the victimized company pay 990,000 won in terms of agreement, 209,040 won in terms of treatment expenses, 390,000 won in terms of agreement, 199,160 won in terms of treatment expenses, and 39,160 won in terms of agreement, respectively, and by having the victimized company pay 409,000 won in repair expenses of the above multilateral taxi.

(b) the co-principal of the crime on April 4, 2010 - the crimes committed on or around April 4, 201 - both C8, Park C9, Park C10, and leap;

The defendant, who was aware of his knowledge, borrowed money from his own bank after receiving a proposal, used both CE8 who did not pay the money due to economic difficulties, to receive the insurance money in disguise of a traffic accident, and to repay the borrowed money.

피고인은 2010. 4. 4. 20:58경 부산 동래구 ◀동에 있는 은행 연수원 앞 사거리에서 교통사고를 가장하기로 계획하고, 윤E 운전의 OO고 00호 카렌스 승용차에 박C10을 탑승시키고, 양C8 운전의 00 거 00호 체어맨 승용차에 박C9를 탑승하도록 하였다.

Since then, according to the direction of the defendant, MaE intentionally caused an accident by pretending that the right side of the above Male-man car, which was in progress by violating the signal from the above shooting distance, was shocked to the front side of the Male-man car.

(1) On the same day, around 21:01 on the same day, Myeon○ Co., Ltd. was phoneed to the victim, and received an accident report from the person in charge of the accident as if the accident occurred due to occupational negligence, and both C8 and Park C9 were hospitalized in Myeon○ Co., Ltd., and Park Da10 was hospitalized in Myeon○ Co., Ltd. on the ground of the Do○ Co., Ltd., and Park Da10

As above, the Defendant, in collusion with both C8, Park C9, Park c10, and MaE, by deceiving the staff in charge of the said victimized company, and then, around April 6, 2010, both C8 received from the victimized company the total amount of KRW 1,050,00 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 501,610 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 1,050,00 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 467,830 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 467,830 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 70,00 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 270,990 under the pretext of agreement, and KRW 7,643,00 under the pretext of agreement, and KRW 7,683,430 under the pretext of agreement.

(2) ♡ 주식회사에 대한 범행 윤E는 2010. 7. 5. 09:15경 피해자인 ① 주식회사에 전화하여 사고 담당자에게 위와 같이 고의로 교통사고를 유발한 것임에도 마치 업무상 과실로 사고가 발생한 것처럼 운전자보험 사고신고를 접수하고, 사고사실확인원, 약식명령과 벌금 납부 영수증 등을 제출하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with both C8, Park C9, Park C10, and MaE as above, received KRW 6,150,000 from the victimized company due to criminal defense costs, etc. around July 8, 2010 by deceiving the staff in charge of the victimized company.

(c) co-offenders with crimes around November 14, 2010: bothC8, maximum E3, EC, and KimE4;

On November 14, 2010, the Defendant, who borrowed money from the Defendant, was able to receive insurance money by pretending to a traffic accident and to repay the borrowed money. On November 22, 2010, the Defendant planned to conclude a traffic accident at the long distance at the entrance of the Busan YU-gu, Busan, the Defendant used this C and KimE4 as passengers, and had E3 operate a car at the lowest 00 BU 00 BU 00.

Since then, according to the direction of the defendant, the best 3 caused an accident by pretending to the left side of the above taxi that was proceeding in accordance with the left left-hand turn while driving in violation of the signal at the above shooting distance as if it was shocked by the front part of the above car.

(1) ▼ 주식회사에 대한 범행 최E3은 같은 날 22:15경 피해자인 ▼ 주식회사에 전화하여 위 피해회사의 사고 담당자 등에게 위와 같이 업무상 과실로 사고가 발생한 것처럼 사고신고를 접수하고, 양C8은 '④'에, 이C는 '♥'에, 김CE4는 '♠'에 각각 특별한 부상이 없었음에도 요추염좌 등을 이유로 입원하여 치료를 받았다.

Since then, on November 15, 2010, the injured company paid KRW 850,00, KRW 58,130 under the pretext of agreement, and KRW 58,130 under the pretext of treatment, thisC received KRW 440,000 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 71,360 under the pretext of treatment, KRW 71,360 under the pretext of agreement, and KRW 70,000 under the pretext of agreement on November 19, 2010, KRW 89,550 under the pretext of treatment, and the injured company paid KRW 378,000 under the pretext of agreement.

On January 10, 201, around 09:15, 201, the maximum E3 continued to call the damaged company and received a report of driver insurance as if the accident occurred due to occupational negligence, even though the accident occurred due to the occurrence of a false traffic accident from the person in charge of the accident. Around January 18, 2011, the 3,400,000 won was paid from the said victimized company as criminal defense costs.

As above, the Defendant, in collusion with both C8, the lowest 3, E3, EC, and Kim CE4, by deceiving the employees in charge of the above victim company, and was given a total of KRW 5,987,040 to the victim company.

(2) 주식회사에 대한 범행 최E3은 2010. 12. 28. 17:45경 피해자인 ♧ 주식회사에 전화하여 사고 담당자에게 위와 같이 고의로 교통사고를 유발한 것임에도 마치 업무상 과실로 사고가 발생한 것처럼 운전자보험 신고를 접수하고, 사고사실확인원, 약식명령과 벌금 납부 영수증 등을 제출하였다.

As above, the Defendant, in collusion with both C8, the lowest 3, E3, EC, and KimCE4, by deceiving a staff member in charge of the name in charge of the victimized company, and then received 6,281,780 won from the victimized company for criminal defense costs around January 17, 2011.

(3) ♣주식회사에 대한 범행 최E3은 2011. 1. 10. 18:23경 피해자인 & 주식회사에 전화하여 사고 담당자에게 위와 같은 고의로 교통사고를 유발한 것임에도 마치 업무상 과실로 사고가 발생한 것처럼 운전자보험 신고를 접수하고, 사고사실확인원, 약식명령과 벌금 납부 영수증 등을 제출하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with both C8, the lowest 3, E3, EC, and KimCE4, by deceiving a staff member in charge of the name in charge of the victimized company, and then received KRW 5,388,608 from the victimized company for criminal defense costs around January 11, 201.

(d)Co-offenders with the crimes around November 16, 2010 - KimE4

On November 16, 2010, the Defendant stopped from the following behind the 00 ○○ 00 Rayon No. 00 OE10 driving, while the Defendant was driving a car on the road near the Busan YE4, the Busan ○○ ○, which was a seat of KimE4, while driving the car at 00 ○○ 00 Rayon.

However, as the above LA car was pushed down behind, the defendant's franchise and the front part of the car became insignificant in the face of LA car, and the E10 received the above accident from the victim & corporation, which is an insurance company to which he/she was a member.

Although at the time the above accident was merely a very minor contact accident and there was no special injury, the Defendant and KimE4 received pain treatment from “for the purpose of receiving insurance money,” and was committed as if they were injured by the accident at the time of the accident. Accordingly, in collusion with KimCE4, the Defendant was urged by the staff in charge on the name of the victimized company and received KRW 250,000 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 56,710 under the name of the Defendant, KRW 56,710 under the pretext of agreement, and KRW 250,000 under the pretext of agreement, KRW 46,790 under the pretext of treatment expenses, and KRW 603,500 under the pretext of agreement.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police officer's protocol of interrogation of each police officer's suspect about thisC, KimE4, Yang C8, MaE, Kim C1, Lee E-9, Park C9, and Park C10, some statements are made;

1. Each police statement of thisC, Korea-E10, MaE3, MaE11, MaE12, MaE13, MaE8, MaE14;

1. A detailed statement of insurance proceeds;

1. Each investigation report (attached a statement, such as attaching a statement, attaching a detailed statement of bank transaction records, etc., attaching a statement of entry and withdrawal, attaching a statement of deposit, attaching a copy of the details of passbook, and submitting a detailed statement of payment of insurance proceeds);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 19(1)1, 3(1)1, and 19(2)3, and 11(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, Article 19(1)3, and Article 11(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (the loan exceeding a limited interest rate, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 15(1), 9 subparag. 1 (the act of involving claims using intimidation), Article 347(1) of each Criminal Act (the selection of imprisonment), Article 347(1) of the Fair Collection of Credit Information Act (the selection of imprisonment), Article 347(1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is that the period of unregistered credit business in this case is long, the number of unregistered credit businesses is considerably high, and the interest rate of loans in excess of the limited interest rate is considerably high, even though the defendant had committed an insurance fraud, and the defendant also committed the insurance fraud in collusion with thisC and YangC8, and collected part of the loans that the defendant lent to the defendant as the insurance proceeds received by theseC and YangC8, in collusion with these C and YangC8, the crime is not good, the damage insurance company is agreed with or deposited, and all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by the disposition.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.