Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, around October 1, 2010, lent money to C, a victim, who was aware of influencies by means of divesing from phones located in Seocho-si, and received interest exceeding 30% per annum, and received interest exceeding 30% per annum. From October 1, 2010 to October 31, 2012, the Defendant loaned money to the victim on 24 occasions over a total of 57 occasions, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, and received interest exceeding 30% per annum.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of receiving interest exceeding the statutory maximum interest rate before the enforcement date does not constitute a violation of the Interest Limitation Act, and accordingly, the part on which the Prosecutor instituted an indictment by applying Articles 8(1) and 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act, but Article 8(1), which is a penal provision, was newly established as a result of the amendment by Act No. 10925 on July 25, 201, pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda of the same Act. Thus, the Defendant’s act of receiving interest exceeding the statutory maximum interest rate prior to the enforcement date does not constitute a violation of the Interest Limitation Act. Accordingly, from October 1, 2010 to June 1, 2011, the part on which the attached crime list No. 1 to 111 (the main sentence No. 2500, Oct. 25, 2011) among the above facts charged does not constitute a crime, and thus, the Defendant was not guilty on the part of the attached Table No. 32510.

3. The gist of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) is that the Defendant has engaged in chain and continuous transactions with the same victim by the same method, each of the instant crimes should be deemed an inclusive crime. In such a case, Article 8 of the Interest Limitation Act, which took effect from October 26, 201, is applicable, since the timing of commencement is October 31, 2012.