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

Defendant

A around July 5, 2013, in the name of “E” in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the credit business was registered and operated until now, and Defendant B also operates the said “E” as the city discount of the above A.

Around June 7, 2012, when the foregoing B was controlled by suspicion of unregistered credit business, around July 5, 2012, the Plaintiff registered the lending company with the trade name “E” in the name of Defendant A, which is the Kenya, and the loan funds were supported by Defendant A, Defendant B collected persons in need of money and delivered the loan.

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

Nevertheless, around November 2012, the Defendants loaned KRW 3,00,000 to the debtor F at the office “E” office located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and loaned KRW 1,50,000 to the debtor F, KRW 2,670,000,000,000 excluding KRW 3,330,000,000,0000,000,000 won for five days, and received interest amounting to 221.3% per annual interest rate (including principal and interest) by dividing 1,80,000,000 won for 36 times, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement, Defendant B’s partial legal statement

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to details of transactions, registration certificate of credit business, detailed statement of each account transaction, investigation report (F testimony of the debtor), and investigation report (investigation of the other party of the debtor);

1. The Defendants in charge of criminal facts and the choice of punishment: Articles 19(2)3 and 8(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act merely provide assistance to Defendant A’s credit business, and they do not agree. However, according to each of the above evidence, the Defendants asserted that there was no collusion.