The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s penalty of eight million won (a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination, we examine ex officio as to the violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users, which violated the limitation on each interest rate set forth in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and

B. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (i) the Defendant entered into a loan agreement on October 18, 2006, and lent KRW 3,00,000 to E in the Gyeongdong-dong-dong-si-si-si-si-si, and (ii) lent KRW 3,90,000 won per day to the number of days for which 3,90,000 won shall be repaid for 100,000 won per day; and (iii) the Defendant entered into a loan agreement on May 7, 2007, and lent KRW 1,30,000 per day to the 1,300,000 won each by lending the loan to the 1,300,000 won by means of the number of days for which 1,30,000 won shall be repaid, thereby violating the interest rate restriction

C. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The judgment of this court is (i) according to Articles 19(2)2, 11, and 8(1) of the former Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users (amended by Act No. 8700 of Dec. 21, 2007), and the statutory penalty is a fine not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding thirty million won. The date and time of the crime is around October 18, 2006 and around May 7, 2007, since the crime falls under Articles 3 and 1 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), Article 249(1)5 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) and Article 36 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 200) and the statute of limitations of prosecution of this case is three years or less after the crime was completed.

She, however, since the court below exceeded this, the court below was no longer able to maintain it.

3. Conclusion.