D Co., Ltd. with the purpose of financial consulting, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "loan brokerage company").

Defendant B is the actual operator of each corporation, and Defendant B is the representative director of each corporation.

Defendants are Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) substantially operated by E.

While lending money, the F received some of the loans from the F on the date of the loan to the due date as the interest and loan brokerage commission and offered to receive interest exceeding the interest rate of the interest restriction law.

around December 24, 2014, the Defendants entered into a loan agreement with the lending company located in the 6th floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the effect that “The amount of KRW 1.9 billion from January 9, 2015, KRW 7 billion from the date of loan, KRW 1.9 billion from the due date until the due date, KRW 1.9 billion from the loan brokerage commission, KRW 1.21 billion from the date of loan, and KRW F shall pay the above interest and brokerage commission to the account in the name of F on the same day after remitting the amount of KRW 7 billion from January 9, 2015 to the account in the name of F on the same day until the due date, and received each remittance of KRW 1.9 billion from the name of the lending company as the interest of the lending company, KRW 1.21 billion from the name of the lending brokerage commission, and KRW 1.9 billion from the account in the name of the lending company.

In the end, the Defendants conspired to lend the principal of KRW 7 billion to F, and received the interest equivalent to KRW 3.1 billion in total, which is 29.6% per annum exceeding the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.

2. The principal amount of the instant lease claimed by the Defendants and the defense counsel is KRW 3.89 billion in an accurate amount of KRW 4 billion.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

interest is 3.1 billion won for the accurate amount of 3 billion won.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

The Defendants agreed not only to the interest but also to the principal, so it is not a violation of the Interest Limitation Act.

3. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court.