However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Although a person violating the Interest Limitation Act does not receive interest exceeding 30% per annum on a monetary lending contract, the Defendant loaned KRW 1.8 million to B from May 2012, 201, and the Defendant received 200,000 won by adding the principal interest to 1.1 once every five months. From that time until December 31, 2012, he/she borrowed KRW 9.9 million in total to B from December 31, 2012, and received interest calculated at the rate of KRW 133% per annum 2.2.2 million per annum x 100,000 won x 1000 won x 1.3% per annum 2.3% per annum with the intention of committing a violation of the Act on fair collection of claims or by threatening or threatening the victim, or by threatening or threatening 1.2% with the intent of committing a new act of causing assault, threat, threat, or threatening 1.27% per annum.

From around that time to March 4, 2013, a debt collection act was conducted by threatening a victim at least six times in total, as shown in attached Table 2, including intimidation of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police and suspect examination protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal report (investigation related to the deposit account of a victim);

1. Relevant statutory provisions and the choice of punishment for a crime: Articles 8 (1) and 2 (1) of the Interest Limitation Act (the point where interest exceeds the restriction rate), Article 15 (1) and Article 9 subparagraph 1 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the point where debt collection is conducted by intimidation); and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act;