C and D’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

A. Defendant C and D1, misunderstanding of legal principles, and ① Defendants received secondary brokerage commission fee (protecing commission) with respect to the performance of all intermediary financing, including middle loan, stock financing, and multilateral loan financing. Defendant C and D1 paid the secondary brokerage commission to the extent that the sum of the primary brokerage commission and the secondary brokerage commission for each lending company does not exceed the upper limit under the statutory brokerage commission rate for the total amount of loan. As such, the secondary brokerage commission fee system did not violate the brokerage commission fee system.

② Also, the secondary brokerage commission that the Defendants received includes a brokerage commission for inventory financing and multilateral financial performance. This does not exceed 5%, which is the upper limit of statutory commission fee even if the sum of the primary brokerage commission for inventory financing and multilateral financial performance, and thus, the remainder of the secondary brokerage commission, excluding the intermediary commission for the second brokerage commission, is not paid in excess of the limited commission fee.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant C: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant D: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant D: a fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the language and text of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”) and the Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”) and the necessity of punishment for credit financial business operators who violated the upper limit of commission fee system, Article 19(2)7 of the Loan Business Act, which is a penal provision for a violation of the upper limit of commission fee system, constitutes not only Article 11-2(3) of the same Act, but also Article 11-2(3) of the same Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the above paragraph (3), and thus, a penal provision for “credit financial business operators” who are paid in excess of the upper limit of commission under paragraph (4) of the same Article, should be punished on the basis of such provision.