logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 안동지원 2015.12.11 2015고단633
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2015 Highest 633"

1. No loan brokerage company that violates the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users shall receive any price in connection with loan brokerage in whatsoever name such as commission, honorarium, or advance payment, from the other party to the loan;

Nevertheless, around May 16, 2014, the Defendant arranged for C to obtain a loan of KRW 3 million each from (i.e., (ii) Licop and mountain loan (ju) and received KRW 1,200,000,000 in total under the name of each brokerage commission, as shown in attached Table 1, from December 26, 2013 to May 28, 2015, and received KRW 122,140,000 in total under the name of brokerage commission.

2. The Defendant, along with D, lent a loan to the victim-based company at the victim-based Lid Co., Ltd., by abusing the fact that the loan is implemented after leaving the phone number at the relevant workplace and confirming only the other party’s work, and using the false workplace number at the time of the examination of the loan, the Defendant thought that the other party to the loan without a certain workplace or fixed income is attending the workplace and received the loan.

Around May 16, 2014, the Defendant conspired with D and C, and the Defendant made a telephone conversation with the victim (owner) employee in charge of lending money, and “C is currently in office in E original business, and there is a monthly income of three million won in cash,” and the Defendant and D, in comparison with D and C, by deceiving the victim company by confirming whether C had been in office or not at the time of lending examination through a false workplace telephone number, and by deceiving it from the victim company for lending three million won as if C had been in office in E, as shown in attached Table 2, by opening a false workplace telephone number as shown in attached Table 2.

arrow