The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a 10-month imprisonment, confiscation, 12 million won additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows.

The crime of violation of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Violation of the Credit Business Act”) by Defendant is highly necessary in light of the legislative purpose, etc. of the above Act, which aims to establish sound financial transaction order and protect debtors who lack economic capacity by regulating the interest rates, etc.

The defendant received interest exceeding 25 times more than the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act from the debtor in the crime of violating the Credit Business Act, and the profits earned therefrom are reasonable.

The Defendant led each of the crimes of this case, and led the Defendant to attract the relatives and ties of the Defendant.

The conditions favorable to the defendant shall be as follows:

The defendant is in profoundly against his wrongness.

The defendant did not pose a serious threat or assault to the debtor in the course of collecting claims arising from a crime of violation of the Credit Business Act.

In the past, the defendant agreed with 18 debtors among 34 cases of the crime of violation of the Credit Business Act, and some of them indicated the agreement to the defendant in the agreement.

Although the Defendant endeavored to reach an agreement with the remaining debtors, it seems that there is a circumstance that it is difficult to reach an agreement due to the change of telephone numbers, etc.

The Defendant deposited KRW 100,00,00 to the debtor R, KRW 400,00 to the debtor Q, KRW 50,00 to the debtor P, and KRW 2.50,00 to the debtor P, respectively.

The game machine used by the defendant for committing a crime in violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act was a game machine distributed after normal deliberation, and the period during which the game room in this case is operated is not long.

The defendant.