이자제한법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged shall not receive interest exceeding the maximum interest rate (30% per annum) on lending and borrowing of money;
Nevertheless, on April 9, 2008, the Defendant loaned KRW 500,000,000 to C under the conditions that C shall be repaid monthly interest of KRW 300,000 from the office of Seopo-do in Seopo-si, Seopo-do (72%) on April 9, 2008, and received from C a total of 18 times from May 8, 2008 to November 8, 2009.
2. Article 8(1) of the Interest Limitation Act, which applies to the judgment prosecutor’s above charged facts (hereinafter “instant penal provision”), was amended by Act No. 10925 on July 25, 201, and was enforced on October 26, 201 from the date on which three months elapsed after its promulgation pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda of the same Act. Article 8(2) of the Addenda of the same Act provides that “The interest rate shall be calculated as prescribed by this Act after the enforcement date of this Act as to the contractual interest rate on money lending and lending established before the enforcement date of this Act,” while there was a transitional provision on the calculation of the interest rate, there was no transitional provision on the newly established penal provision.
If so, in light of the principle of non-payment of the criminal law under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution and the provision of Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Act, "the formation and punishment of a crime shall be governed by the Act at the time of an act", it is reasonable to view that the penal provision of this case applies to a case where a contract for monetary lending exceeding the limited interest rate was entered into after the provision
However, the agreement date of lending and borrowing of money stated in the facts charged of this case is April 9, 2008, and the interest payment date is prior to the enforcement of the instant penal provision from May 8, 2008 to November 8, 2009. Thus, the above facts charged is deemed a case where it does not constitute a crime.
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.