대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenarios) affirmed the facts charged regarding the receipt of loan brokerage fees of this case as the primary facts charged, and did not permit the prosecutor’s application for modification of indictment to add the facts charged concerning the operation of loan brokerage business with no preliminary registration, and acquitted the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no proof of facts charged.
However, the prosecutor's motion to amend the bill of amendment should be permitted to add the facts charged that the defendant has run a unregistered loan brokerage business, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant has been recognized to run a unregistered loan brokerage business.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is not the loan broker from the opposite contractual party who borrows the brokerage commission, which is the consideration for brokerage.
On August 30, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 8 million in cash as a loan broker through F upon the request of the above E to pay the brokerage commission to the Defendant in lieu of the Defendant’s payment of the brokerage fee.
As a result, the Defendant received a brokerage commission from the opposite contractual party who received a loan.
B. The lower court determined that Article 19(2)6 and Article 11-2(2) of the former Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 2011; hereinafter “former Act”) provide that “a loan broker shall not receive the payment for brokerage from the opposite contractual party who borrows the loan, and a person who receives the brokerage commission in violation of this provision shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.” Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Act provides that “loan broker” shall be punished by Article 3 of the former Act.