A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

, however, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a person who formally registers a credit business in the name of “E” and provides a loan for the number of days under the direction of Defendant B, and Defendant B is a person who operates a lending company of “F”.

1. Where Defendant A and B make a loan to an individual, etc., the interest rate shall not exceed 39% per annum;

The Defendants sent letters of loan promotion to many unspecified persons or offered loan advertisements on the Internet, etc., and agreed to lend such letters to them and collect the principal and interest exceeding the statutory interest rate.

Accordingly, Defendant A, on February 21, 2012, made a de facto payment of KRW 1.80,000 after deducting KRW 500,000 from 50,000 to G under the pretext of a notarized fee, etc., Defendant A agreed to receive a total of KRW 600,000 per share of principal and interest for five weeks, and received a reimbursement of KRW 600,000 as principal and interest in accordance with the agreement.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to lend money to G as above, and received interest of 1,424.95% per annum, and exceeded the statutory interest rate of 39%, as shown in attached Table 1, including that the Defendants exceeded the statutory interest rate of 1,424.95%, and extended a total of 130 times from January 2012 to September 12, 2012.

2. Defendant A

A. A. Around August 17, 2012, the defrauded Defendant reported and contacted the Internet advertising of loans at the coffee shop near Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, saying, “The Defendant may lend KRW 1 million to the victim H as a collateral with no repayment ability test. The inside of the Republic of Korea would transfer KRW 500,000,000 from the date of the transfer to the account with no payment ability test of KRW 300,000 until the date of the reduction of the payment.”

However, even if the victim H remitted 50,000 won, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to lend one million won to such female.

Nevertheless, the defendant is guilty.