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.

2. Articles 19(2)6 and 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, 201; hereinafter “former Act”) provide that “a loan broker shall not receive the consideration for brokerage (retail) from a 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 thirty million won.” Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Act defines “a loan broker” as “a person who has registered a loan brokerage business under Article 3 of the former Act.”

On the other hand, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant was an employee of the tax-income financial loan company that registered the loan brokerage business at the time of the instant case. The above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was a loan broker that registered the loan brokerage business under the former Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime without examining further, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the defendant cannot obtain consent of the defendant due to his/her absence on the sentencing date. Thus, the judgment of innocence is announced in accordance with