대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. A person who intends to engage in a loan business of the summary of the facts charged is registered with the competent authority, but the Defendant, without registering, lent KRW 16.5 million to D at the law firm C office located on July 25, 2016 in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, under the condition that D shall be paid KRW 20 million after two months thereafter, and lent KRW 3.5 million to the said D at the Defendant’s residence located on July 29, 201, on condition that D shall be paid KRW 20 million after 20 days thereafter.
2. The phrase “business” in the main sentence of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users refers to the continuous repetition of the same act. Whether a loan constitutes a business ought to be determined in accordance with the social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as whether a loan is repeated and continued, whether a loan is operated, and whether a loan constitutes a business.
The act of lending the Defendant’s business as stated in the facts charged is limited to lending the amount of KRW 20 million to D twice, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant engaged in the above lending act.
3. According to the conclusion, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, a judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the consent to the public notice of the judgment of innocence cannot be obtained due to the absence of the defendant, and thus, the summary of the judgment of innocence is not publicly notified pursuant to the proviso of