대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the ex officio prosecutor, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, of violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users due to Unregistered Credit Business, etc., “Any person who intends to engage in credit business shall register as Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Do governor, or Special Self-Governing Province Governor, which has jurisdiction over the relevant place of business. Nevertheless, the Defendant, without registering with the competent administrative agency from July 2009 to March 2012, 200, extended a total of KRW 58,380,000 to B, etc. 24 times as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, was running credit business.”
However, according to the records of this case, the Defendant appealed a fine of 4,00,000 won at the Daegu District Court on July 4, 2012 for violating the Act on the Registration of Credit Business and the Protection of Financial Users. However, upon receiving the dismissal decision on September 24, 2012, the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 9, 2012, and the facts constituting the above final judgment were not registered with the competent authority, and the Defendant engaged in credit business by lending one million won to the debtor H and I from October 2009 to August 20, 2010. The Defendant continued to engage in credit business at the same time from July 2009 to March 2012.
According to the above facts, the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users of this case and the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business of this case were committed by a single criminal intent, and the effect of the above final judgment extends to the above facts charged prior to the pronouncement. Thus, the above facts charged constitutes a final judgment, and thus, the judgment of acquittal should be rendered pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.