logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.02 2017고정89
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who runs a business without registration.

On January 4, 2013, the Defendant lent 15 million won (1.5 million won as a completion of the course, and 13.5 million won as a result of deducting 450,000 won from a line interest) to C on the street in front of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, and received interest exceeding 32.95% per annum from C until January 3, 2014 (32.95% per annum).

2. On November 13, 2013, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant received a summary order on the grounds that the defendant's defense counsel's assertion of acquittal of defense counsel " without registering the loan business to the competent authority on August 17, 2012 and November 201, and without registering the loan business," and that the summary order is confirmed as it is, and that the above summary order should be pronounced acquitted in accordance with the validity of the above summary order, on the same basis as the facts charged in the instant case.

However, according to the evidence duly selected and examined by this court, the above summary order is not identical to the facts charged in this case where the defendant engaged in a non-registered loan business, and the interest rate prescribed by this Act exceeds the interest rate prescribed by this Act, and its content and form are completely different from the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the defense counsel's dismissal is without merit.

3. Determination of facts charged

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion 1) The party who lent money to C is not the Defendant but the credit service provider D, and the party who actually lent KRW 15 million without deducting the fee and interest interest. Therefore, the party did not receive any interest exceeding the limited interest rate.

2) And even if the above assertion is not recognized,

Even if the prosecutor's office, from January 4, 2013 to July 2, 2014, arbitrarily divides the period from January 4, 2013 to January 3, 2014, and the electronic order is issued.

arrow