except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who registered with the head of Jung-gu, Seoul with the trade name "C" in the Jung-gu, Seoul, and operated credit business, and D and E are employees of the above company.

Where a credit service provider lends a loan to an individual, the interest rate shall not exceed 39/100 per annum.

Around October 25, 2011, the Defendant, in collusion with the foregoing D and E, lent KRW 4 million to debtor F at the above “C office,” and agreed to receive interest of KRW 400,000 per month on the balance of the principal and KRW 4% per month, and violated the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest equivalent to approximately KRW 60.1% per annum of the principal exceeding the above statutory interest rate.

B. On November 3, 2011, the Defendant, in collusion with the foregoing D and E, lent KRW 5 million to G from the above “C” office, and agreed to receive interest of KRW 500,000 per month on the balance of the principal and KRW 4% per month for ten months, thereby violating the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest equivalent to approximately KRW 60.1% per annum of the principal exceeding the said statutory interest rate.

C. On November 23, 2011, the Defendant, in collusion with the foregoing D and E, lent KRW 2.5 million to the obligor H at the above “C office,” and agreed to receive 4% interest on the balance between the principal and the principal each month for ten months, thereby violating the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest equivalent to approximately KRW 60.1% per annum of the principal exceeding the said statutory interest rate.

Around November 28, 2011, the Defendant, in collusion with the above D and E, lent KRW 3 million to the debtor I at the above “C office,” and agreed to receive interest of KRW 300,000 per month on the balance of the principal and KRW 4% per month for ten months, thereby violating the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest equivalent to approximately 60.1% per annum of the principal exceeding the above statutory interest rate.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of D or E;

1. Copy of the statement made to H by the police;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Account details, receipts, and receipts;