All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Inasmuch as the Defendant was paid 10 million won on August 1, 2017 by mistake of facts (as regards the case cost of KRW 10 million) from D on August 1, 2017, it is irrelevant to the instant loan, Defendant 1 is the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”).

(2) No interest may be deemed as falling under Article 8(2) of the Credit Business Act. Nevertheless, the lower court deemed that the above case costs of KRW 10 million was related to the instant loan, and calculated the interest rate by deeming the said amount as the interest rate under Article 8(2) of the Credit Business Act. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine (as to the fee of KRW 28.5 million), D shall pay the service fee of KRW 28.5 million to E irrespective of the instant loan, regardless of the instant loan. The Defendant directly paid the said amount to E on behalf of D, and thereafter received the said amount from D on August 1, 2017.

As above, the court below calculated interest rate by deeming the above amount as interest rate under Article 8 (2) of the Credit Business Act even though it cannot be deemed as interest rate under Article 8 (2) of the Credit Business Act in special circumstances unrelated to the loan of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts as to D’s amount of KRW 5,413,200, out of the amount paid to the Defendant on August 1, 2017, the interest rate shall be calculated by deeming the said amount as an interest rate under Article 8(2) of the Credit Business Act. Nevertheless, the lower court did not regard the said amount as an interest, and calculated the interest rate after deducting it from the cost of creating a security right. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the sentence (five million won of a fine) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too una

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion