A. In misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, while lending money to C, demanded interest exceeding 30% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act, which is the highest interest rate under C, or agreed to do so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the Interest Limitation Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant received interest exceeding 30% per annum as stated in the facts constituting a crime in C and the lower judgment, so the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

① On May 2, 2012, C made a statement to the effect that the Defendant lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant on the condition that he/she paid interest on KRW 50 million each month on May 22, 2012 (Evidence No. 7 pages), that the Defendant lent KRW 10 million to C on the condition that he/she would pay interest on KRW 5 million each month at the investigation agency (Evidence No. 147 pages), and that he/she was paid interest on KRW 50,000 in cash at the house of C, and that he/she was paid KRW 500,000 each month (Evidence No. 141 pages of the Evidence No. 141 of the Record). In light of the fact that the Defendant lent KRW 10,000,000 to C on the list of crimes as indicated in the lower judgment, and received KRW 50,000 per month as interest.

② In light of the fact that C, in an investigative agency, the amount of money Nos. 2 through 9 of the crime sight table in the holding of the lower judgment, the Defendant borrowed the money to C after deducting the interest from the interest, and the Defendant stated to the effect that it was fully repaid including the interest (Evidence No. 7 through 8) and the Defendant also stated to the investigative agency for the same purpose (Evidence No. 148 to 149 of the evidence record), etc., the Defendant lent the money of each of the above crime sight table No. 2 through 9 to C.