대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendants knew that I received the money from H under the pretext of fees and so it should be determined whether the above money was included in the interest that the defendants received and violated the restriction on interest rate. However, the court below found the defendants not guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that the above money was not deemed as the interest received by the defendants, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the person who registered a credit business under the trade name of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 307 between June 12, 2009 and June 11, 2012, and Defendant B is the person who registered a credit business under the trade name of “G” from June 22, 2008.
1) Defendant A’s credit service provider may not exceed the interest rate (44/100) prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Credit Business Act if the loan is made to an individual or a small-scale corporation. Nevertheless, on January 7, 2011, the Defendant, at the residence of H, remitted the amount of KRW 1.47,625 million calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 3750,000 from the amount of the loan requested for a six-month period from the amount of KRW 15,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, from the interest rate of KRW 1.3,155,000,000,000,000 in cash as the fee for the creation, etc., and thus, violated the statutory interest rate limitation.
Nevertheless, around July 26, 2012, the Defendant added a loan of KRW 60 million to a non-termless period at H’s residence and added a loan of KRW 1.5 million to the interest rate of KRW 1.5 million and the said I received KRW 7.8 million in total as fees such as the cost of creation.