(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.06.02 2015노5438 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.06.02 2015노5438

대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding the fact is not a non-registered credit service provider, since the Defendant registered the loan business at the Jeonju City.

In addition, since the defendant provided only funds, he cannot be the subject of the crime of this case.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment for each of the crimes set forth in Nos. 1 through 3 among the crimes set forth in the judgment below and the crimes set forth in Nos. 1 through 3 among the crimes set forth in the List No. 2 among the crimes set forth in the judgment below, and the crimes set forth in Nos. 4 through 792 among the crimes set forth in the List No. 1 among the crimes set forth in the judgment below, and the crimes set forth in Nos. 4 through 715 among the crimes set forth in the List No. 2 among the crimes set forth in the List

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on June 8, 2009, the fact that the Defendant registered the loan business operator with the former Sinsan Q as the location of the place of business under the name of "P" at the former Sinju City tax office on June 8, 2009, and that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine twice a year 201 due to a violation of the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and the Protection of Financial Users.

However, under Article 13 (2) 2 of the same Act, the registration of a credit service provider, etc. may be revoked when the credit service provider, etc. was sentenced to a fine in violation of the same Act. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to be a non-registered credit service provider at the time of committing the

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant, while committing the instant crime with accomplices, led the Defendant to commit the instant crime by drawing around the surrounding persons in the location of the former owner, and actually operated the lending company.

Thus, the Defendant constitutes “a person who conducts loan business”, the principal agent of the instant crime.

3) Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the above facts.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant was voluntarily present at the police station, and E, an accomplice.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.12.06 2018고단4621

-서울북부지방법원 2018.06.04 2018고정489

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2015.12.17 2015고단1636

-제주지방법원 2016.04.21 2016고단275

-수원지방법원 2018.05.29 2018고단2009