채권의공정한추심에관한법률위반등
1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000;
2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, fifty thousand won.
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant registered a credit business with the trade name “B” from January 24, 2011, and run a credit business. C is a person who, from November 24, 201, received the number of days from the Defendant’s obligor in the aforementioned Section B along with the Defendant’s backline from November 201.
1. Where a credit service provider that violates the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users Act lends a loan to an individual, the interest rate thereon shall not exceed 39% per annum from June 27, 2011;
On November 15, 201, the Defendant, in collusion with C, lent KRW 1.80,000,000, after deducting 1.20,000 won from the prior interest from the loan principal of KRW 2 million to the victim E in the vicinity of the Ansan-dong located in Busan-dong, Busan-dong, and received KRW 1,248,00,00 for interest and interest over 52 times up to 52 times until now.
B. On November 19, 201, in collusion with C, the Defendant loaned 4.7 million won, after deducting 3 million won from 5 million won of the loan principal for the number of days the victim E at the location described in paragraph (1) of the same Article, 4.7 million won from 5 million won of the loan principal, and 60,000 won of the daily repayment principal and interest (184% of the annual interest rate), and received 1,320,000 won over 22 times until now.
Accordingly, the Defendant was paid interest in violation of the interest rate limit.
2. On February 15, 2012, the Defendant violated the Fair Collection of Claims Act: (a) assaulted the F Insurance Agency (“F Insurance Agency”) on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the victim the number of days because the victim did not have any money, as described in paragraph (1), in the course of collecting the claim against the victim, within the F Insurance Agency working for the victim located in Jindong-dong, Busan, Jindong-gu; and (b) on the ground that the Defendant did not repay the victim’s claim to the victim as stated in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim who is the debtor and committed the debt collection act.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding C;
1. The application of the police statement law to E.