대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.
Punishment of the crime
On February 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) loaned KRW 2 million from “Eju” operated by D in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) deducted the name of commission from KRW 200,000; and (c) concluded a loan agreement to pay 40,000 per day for 65 days; and (d) received interest exceeding the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act at a rate of 436.72% per annum.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement of D police statement;
1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to attach the interest rate calculation table;
1. Article 19 (2) 3 and Article 11 (1) of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users regarding criminal facts and the Selection of fines;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order
1. No debt collector in charge shall engage in any conduct that seriously undermines privacy or peace in business by repeatedly or at night (from 9:0 p.m. to 8:0 a.m. the following day) visits any debtor or his/her related person without justifiable grounds to arouse fear or apprehension;
On December 2, 2011, around 23:50, the Defendant committed an act that seriously undermines privacy or peace in business by inducing fears to the victim by providing the obligor D with a bath, such as “a fluoral, fluoral, fluoral, fluoral, and fluoring fluoral,” to “a fluoral, fluoral, fluoral,” etc.
2. The Defendant and his defense counsel merely visited the places specified in the facts charged at the time stated in the facts charged, but did not engage in any act that seriously undermines privacy or peace in business by inducing fears to D, without any desire as stated in the facts charged.
3. First of all, as to whether the defendant made a statement to D as described in the above facts charged, it is only D's police statement as evidence that seems to fit to the above facts charged.
this Court.