A. Defendant 1) The crime of violation of the Act on the misunderstanding of Fact and the misunderstanding of Legal doctrine (violation of the Interest Limitation Act) is established when the interest actually paid exceeds the highest interest rate prescribed in the above Act, not by the agreement, and when the actual amount of loans and the amount of redemption are compared to the actual amount of loans and the amount of redemption between the Defendant and the victim, the

Therefore, the Defendant did not receive interest exceeding the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence (2.5 million won penalty) imposed by the lower court against the criminal defendant, which was unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (non-indicted 1) Defendant’s statement made to the victim, the Defendant’s statement made by the victim, and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim constitutes intimidation or threat related to the collection of claims.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court against the criminal defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

A) When the Defendant agreed to lend the “principal of the loan” to the victim as repayment terms for the same number of days as “the repayment terms” in each year’s “the date of loan” as indicated in the attached Table of the judgment below, the Defendant actually granted only the remainder of the “actual loan amount”, i.e., the “the principal of the loan” after deducting the “amount deducted.”

B) The victim borrowed the above.