In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 50.

1. Notwithstanding the fact that a person who intends to engage in credit business is registered with the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Metropolitan City Mayor, or a Special Self-Governing Province Governor having jurisdiction over the pertinent place of business by each place of business, the Defendants conspired with the Defendants to engage in credit business under subparagraph 204 of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and agreed to engage in credit business, without registering the credit business to the competent administrative agency on December 8, 201, and lent KRW 3 million to E and F, for whom the Defendants requested to provide loans by reporting the name cards distributed by the Defendants under subparagraph

2. Although the maximum interest rate should not exceed 30% per annum when the unregistered credit service provider grants a loan, the Defendants conspired to lend 3 million won per annum to the above E and F at the same date, time, and place as described in the above paragraph 1, and provided that 150,000 won per annum shall be deducted as prior interest and repaid 60,000 won per day, including principal, for 30 days from the above E and F, and received interest (annual 292.1% per annum) in excess of the statutory limit interest rate.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A report on investigation (or a relative investigation of a victim);

1. Calculation of the interest rate for days;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each loan application form, loan transaction contract, respective notes, promissory notes, or a copy of advertisement statement;

1. The Defendants in charge of the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment: Articles 19 (1) 1, 3 (1), 19 (2) 3, and 11 (1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users; Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants among concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendants in custody in the workhouse do not have the same criminal records against the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, and recognize their mistakes and reflects their depth, taking into account the period and scale of the business of the Defendants, the amount of damage, their age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the sentence is imposed as ordered.