A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users;

1.(a)(b)

A

2.(b)

B

3.2

C

4.2

D Corporation

He/she shall do so. He/she shall do so.

Law Firm E (Defendant A and D Co., Ltd)

Attorney F, G

Attorney H (the national election for the defendant B)

Law Firm I (For Defendant C)

J., Attorney J

January 12, 2017

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, by a fine of 5 million won, and by a fine of 20 million won, respectively.

When Defendant B and C fail to pay each of the above fines, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A (specific amount, etc. of the facts constituting this part of the crime shall be changed ex officio according to the contents of attached Tables 1 and 2 of the revised indictment as follows):

Upon introduction of B,C, etc., the Defendant: (a) provided the exporter’s intent to sell the goods (i.e., Offeret) and deposits necessary for the issuance of the Credit; (b) obtained a fixed-term import L/C loan and a L/C issuance for the purpose of imported Aluminum (which is stored in a domestic bonded warehouse through delivery export of bonded warehouse) from the financial institution; and (c) received a so-called “import Aluminum delivery document,” etc. from the above operators on the date of the loan; (d) at the same time, the Defendant paid a cash after deducting approximately 6% through 14.5% of the revenue from the above operators under the name of commission. In other words, the Defendant led the import of Aluminum for 30 days, 60 days, or 90 days, or 90 days, in the name of the bank.

(a) Any person who intends to engage in credit business in violation of the Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users Act shall register with the competent authorities;

The Defendant, around 10, 4 April 2013, proposed that K (mutual L; hereinafter referred to as “K”) operator and N, “K, which is in custody in a domestic bonded warehouse, may be changed in cash upon the issuance of only the import L/C. When a bank opens an import L/C with a maturity of 30 to 90 days. Upon receiving a loan to issue an import L/C with a maturity of 30 to 90 days, the bank will take the account of cash after deducting the fee from the loan, i.e., the L/C amount., the bank will also lend the deposit security (or within 50% of the revenue amount) required at the time of issuance of L/C.”

On October 4, 2013, the Defendant extended a loan of KRW 350,000,000,000 to an enterprise bank as security to be offered to the company bank, by delivering documents necessary for the opening of the documentary credit for import of Aluminium at the office of the company located in the Sinju City of Gwangju, the Defendant approved the loan of KRW 534,00,000,000,000,000 ( KRW 35,434,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) that was applied in the name of the K.

From 153,130,794 won, excluding KRW 350,000,000,000, which he borrowed from Aluminum equivalent to KRW 500,000,00 on the day, the Defendant delivered KRW 95,716,421, which was deducted from KRW 57,414,373 as a fee, to M and N, and then accepted the imported Aluminum equivalent to KRW 500,00,00 (in case of a 30-day import letter of credit, KRW 57,414,373, 30-day interest rate of KRW 11.4% on the 30-day interest rate of KRW 136.8% on the year).

In addition, the Defendant paid 70 times from October 4, 2013 to December 16, 2015 the amount of cash calculated by deducting 6% to 14.5% of the amount of cash, and, as described in the attached Table 1, the Defendant actually carried out the import of Aluminium, and requested K, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the issuing company of the letter of credit of this case”) to apply for a loan to issue an import letter of credit under the name of K, etc. which has no experience in importing Aluminium (hereinafter referred to as “the issuing company of the letter of credit of this case”), and imposed an obligation to pay the full amount of the revenue within 30 days to the issuing company of the letter of credit of this case including the credit of this case from 36,386,950,994.

Accordingly, the defendant was engaged in credit business without registering with the competent authorities.

(b) Violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

On October 2013, the Defendant paid cash to K operator M and N with no ability to repay the amount of money in the early 2013 K operator M and N with no capacity to repay the amount of money, namely, the method of separately deducting approximately KRW 6% or 11% of the amount of money that he provided, or separately deducting the fee from the fee of approximately 6% or 11% of the credit issued by several banks (hereinafter referred to as "the credit return"), if M and N fail to repay the amount to the affected bank even after the lapse of 30 days or 90 days, the Defendant used the loan temporarily on the same day (as the fee, approximately 6% or 11% of the amount was deducted).

Accordingly, around October 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a letter of credit of USD 500,00 to Ma and N at the office of the injured party's Enterprise Bank of War in Gwangju-si, and 30 days have passed since the date of the issuance of the letter of credit of USD 1,000,000, the Defendant had M and N repay the existing loans in the so-called 'N' manner around November 1, 2013, M and N obtain a loan for the issuance of an import letter of credit of USD 1,000,000, and re-import Aluminum tin. The Defendant continued to obtain a loan for the issuance of an import letter of credit of USD 1,100,000 in the same way as on February 14, 2014, and 'import Aluminum tin'.

In addition, the Defendant opened a letter of credit of USD 1,1910,00 ($ 12 billion in total) in the name of K, K, 00, and P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "K, etc.") with a view to obtaining the benefit of deduction equivalent to about 6% or 11% of the revenue through "import aluminium tin" at the time of opening each letter of credit, as shown in attached Table 2 between April 10, 2013 and July 24, 2014, for the purpose of obtaining the benefit of deduction equivalent to 15% or 11% of the revenue from the affected bank through M, N, 15 times.

However, because K et al. did not have the ability to repay, it is difficult for K et al. to additionally issue an import letter of credit at another bank or to repay the existing loan without so-called 'N', and the defendant knew such circumstances and let M & N issue a letter of credit.

In addition, the person in charge of the injured bank did not approve the issuance of a term import letter of credit and the issuance of a letter of credit if the injured bank knew that the above company was not related to normal trade business, or that the defendant used the letter of credit as a means of short-term financing while leading the importation in the name of the above company, or that the defendant could prevent delinquency in the form of so-called 'boom' or 'booming due to lack of ability to repay'.

Accordingly, in collusion with M and N, the defendant was issued a letter of credit of USD 11910,00 ($ 12,000,000) from the affected bank, and received payment guarantee for the above amount, and acquired financial benefits equivalent to the same amount.

2. A person who intends to engage in Defendant B and C loan brokerage shall register with the competent authority.

The Defendants already reached the credit limit or it is difficult to obtain bank loans due to the absence of any other security, but introduce to A a loan request from an enterprise requiring urgent funds, and deliver funds to A with documents necessary for the issuance of the credit, such as an exporter's letter of intent to sell, etc., and then settle cash received by A and the representative of A and the company in the vicinity of the bank on the date of the issuance of the credit, and at the same time receive 1% or 2% of the amount of the loan from A.

A. Defendant B

The Defendant, around July 18, 2014, at the office of Sungnam-si Q 507 D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “D”), obtained loans from the representative of R Co., Ltd through A as shown in the attached Table 1 / 24, and received KRW 9,243,597 from the representative of R Co., Ltd. in return.

around August 27, 2014, the Defendant received a loan from the representative of S Co., Ltd. to the representative of S Co., Ltd through A as shown in No. 1 28 of the List of Crimes. In return, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the representative of S Co., Ltd.

On September 30, 2014, the Defendant obtained a loan from the representative of T Co., Ltd. through A, such as No. 1 No. 30 of the List of Crimes, and received 6,400,968 won from the representative of T Co., Ltd.

The Defendant, around February 12, 2015, obtained a loan from the above D office through U representative of U via A as shown in [Attachment Table 1] No. 43, and received five million won from U representative of U.S. in return (whether Defendant B received the payment from a person among the above criminal facts, is deemed to have no particular impact on the exercise of the above Defendant’s right of defense, and thus ex officio changed and recognized as above).

In this respect, the defendant did not make a registration but run a loan brokerage business.

B. Defendant C

When operating a real estate consulting company, the defendant introduced a person who has consulted about the method of financing the company's funds to A, which is a real estate consulting company.

On January 15, 2014, the Defendant obtained a loan from the above D office via A as shown in No. 13 of the List of Crimes No. 13, and received KRW 8,722,239 from A in return.

On September 30, 2014, the Defendant obtained a loan from the above D office via A, as shown in No. 1 th No. 31 of the List of Crimes, and received KRW 8 million from A in return.

On April 30, 2015, the Defendant received a loan from the above D office via A, as shown in No. 1 56 of the List of Offenses Act, and received KRW 8 million from A in return.

In this respect, the defendant did not make a registration but run a loan brokerage business.

3. D;

A, as described in paragraph (a) above, substantially operating the Defendant, engaged in credit business without registering the Defendant’s business 70 times between October 4, 2013 and December 16, 2015 with the competent authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, and C

1. Each legal statement of the witness M, N, Z, and A (Provided, That the legal statement of the witness A shall be limited to the defendant B, C, and D only);

1. A suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution against A;

1. Investigation report (Us.S. deposit and credit loan) and related bank personnel interview report, accompanied by the LAB loan document, confirmation of LAB loan, confirmation of the fact of LAB loan, investigation of the location of the D D company registration of the suspect A, submission of some transaction details, accompanying documents related to the issuance of the LAB LA, submission of documents related to the LA credit by the KAB bank, status of the LAP loan, current status of the LAP loan, each company's counterpart revenue and tax contract settlement details, D-B transaction amount, list of crimes) and each accompanying documents;

1. Requests for investigation cooperation and replies thereon, written applications, such as each request for foreign exchange transaction agreements of new banks, each certified transcript of corporate register, documents related to the issuance of new bank credit, each transaction statement, records of financial transaction, data on financial transaction, financial transaction status, reports on credit status, each credit rating table, foreign exchange transfer statement, receipts, tax settlement statement, mortgage agreement, loan agreement, loan consultation and application form, foreign exchange transaction agreement, meeting minutes, loan transaction agreement, loan transaction agreement, loan contract, guarantee statement, loan approval statement, financial statements statement, financial statements statement statement, copy of each account transaction statement, each account transaction statement, CIF data, documents related to the credit of new banks, each transaction statement, each application for the issuance of credit, each transaction statement, revenue and tax contract statement, each settlement statement, AB-D transaction statement, each written indictment, AB-D statement, and each written indictment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A

Articles 19(1)1 and 3(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”); Articles 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (each fraud committed against victim company bank, foreign exchange bank, new bank, and national bank, respectively: Provided, That each fraud committed against victim company bank, foreign exchange bank, and national bank shall be included);

B. Articles 19(1)1 and 3(1) of the Credit Business Act (including selection of each fine and each of the defendants), 2 and C

C. Defendant D

Articles 20, 19(1)1, and 3(1)(general) of the Credit Business Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against a victim corporate bank with the largest punishment and punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant B and C: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. Defendant A, or D

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Crimes of running an unregistered credit business

The money paid by Defendant A to the issuing company of the letter of credit of this case is limited to the payment made under the name of the purchase price for alinium trading between the above company and Defendant D, and Defendant A does not engage in the unregistered credit business in this process.

2) The L/C fraud crime

Defendant A was not willing to commit fraud through M, N and L lending, and K was unaware of the fact that there was no means to perform the obligation, and there was no intention to commit fraud. Even if Defendant A conspireds to commit the above fraud, the amount equivalent to the deposit security or the amount equivalent to the existing obligation repaid to the victim bank during the repeated process of lending the credit should be deducted at the time of calculating the amount of property profit.

B. Determination

1) Determination on crimes of running a unregistered credit business

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, Defendant A, without having an intention to normally engage in Aluminium transactions with the issuing company of the instant credit through Defendant D, created appearance such as normal transaction with Aluminium, and prepared cash to the said company’s operators and directly acquired the same portion of the cash so prepared as the price for financing.

A) The issuing company of the instant L/C including K et al. imported aluminium from a foreign company from the beginning to sell it again to another domestic company that requires Aluminium with a certain finium attached thereto, thereby engaging in the normal import and sale of Aluminium. The operators of the above companies have been introduced by the Defendant A only in a situation where it is difficult to obtain a loan from a financial institution in a normal way, and only the said companies have been engaged in the normal operation of the import and sale of Aluminium.

B) For the purpose of using them in the provision of security to financial institutions, Defendant A provided the above companies with money equivalent to KRW 60 million in advance, and the financial institutions trusted the above deposit security approved the issuance of the credit amount exceeding the above amount of deposit, and provided large credit to the issuing companies of the credit of this case by paying the import amount of Aluminium in lieu of the issuing companies of the credit of this case. Accordingly, upon the issuance of the credit, Defendant A provided large amount of credit to the issuing companies of this case. Accordingly, Defendant A provided funds by selling AB, etc., after being delegated by the issuing companies of the credit of this case, alinium stored in the domestic bonded warehouse of this case under the authority of the issuing companies of the credit of this case. Defendant A paid to the issuing companies of this case by cash the remaining amount after deducting the amount equivalent to at least 6% and a maximum of 14.5% as Defendant A’s fee from Alinium revenue amount.

C) However, the series of processes leading to the import of Aluminium by the issuing company of the instant L/C, the sale of the above Aluminium to Defendant D, and the resale of the above Aluminium were handled independently by the Defendant A. In addition, the issuing company of the instant L/C sold Aluminium imported from a foreign company to D operated by Defendant A, at the request of Defendant A, at the time of the re-sale of the imported Aluminium, at the time of the issuance company of the instant L/C, the company sold A more discounted amount than the initial revenue, and it was possible to acquire cash only when it approves the Defendant A, who has overall control over the process,

D) In full view of these facts, it is evident that the Plaintiff and the Defendant D operated by the Defendant did not have a normal Althanum transaction. Defendant A provided the amount equivalent to deposit security in advance for the issuing company of the instant L/C, for which it was difficult to raise funds any longer due to the absence of any security, etc., and provided them with the amount equivalent to the deposit security, allowing them to issue the L/C, and allowing the said company to acquire large amounts of cash immediately by collectively processing the import, sale and resale procedures of Alluminum, and allowing the said company to acquire large amount of cash, and it is recognized that the said company actually carried on credit business by separately acquiring the price for it under the pretext of commission or discount, etc.

2) Determination on the L/C fraud crime

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the foregoing evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the fraudulent act of lending credit, such as K, in collusion with M and N, with the intent to commit the crime of defraudation as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the Defendant.

A) As seen earlier, K et al. imported Aluminum from a foreign company at the beginning of the Aluminium and sold it again to another domestic company that requires Aluminium with a certain finium attached, and was not a company that intended to normally engage in the import and sale of Aluminium. It was merely a company that had the appearance of the import and sale of Aluminium in order to temporarily provide funds to the victim banks with a genuine intent. Defendant A was not only aware of these circumstances, but also he/she was a person who directly handled a series of subsequent procedures that led to the acquisition of Aluminium, payment of cash to M and N, sale of the said Aluminium, resale of the said Aluminium, etc. after the issuance of the credit.

B) According to the letter of credit and the revenue, sale, and resale structure produced by Defendant A, the subject of the credit opened and the subject of the loan continued to obtain large amounts of fees without concerns that the amount equivalent to the deposit security actually provided during the process of the issuance of the credit would not be recovered, as the fees paid to Defendant A would be repeated. On the other hand, Defendant A did not bear any responsibility for the loan obligation, and Defendant A continued to obtain large amounts of fees.

① When selling Aluminum imported from a foreign company to Defendant A, K et al. sold Aluminum at a discount higher than the initial revenue amount, and after the issuance of the letter of credit, K et al. paid a considerable amount of fees to Defendant A that took overall charge of a series of subsequent procedures. As such, K et al. is bound to incur a considerable pecuniary loss immediately due to the lending of such credit and the act of importing, selling, or resale of Aluminium. As such, as the lending of credit and the act of resale of Aluminum are repeated, losses are expected to continue to increase.

② Unlike the fact that M and N, which operate K, etc. due to such a credit, bears a large amount of loans to the victim banks, and Defendant A pays a reasonable amount of fees to Defendant A, Defendant A or D does not bear any responsibility for the above loan obligations. The amount equivalent to the deposit security that Defendant A issued to M and N prior to the issuance of the credit is also deducted in the course of cash payment to M and N after the issuance of the credit, and there was no concern that it would not be returned.

C) Even based on the statements of related persons, including B, C, M, and N, Defendant A seems to have been fully aware of the financial situation of K, etc. requesting financing of funds to oneself at the time.

① According to the prosecutor’s statement of B and C, they introduced to Defendant A the operators of a company, which is difficult to obtain a loan from a financial institution any more in a normal way, and Defendant A also knew of such circumstances as the one who found himself/herself in order to obtain a credit. From the perspective of those who introduced Defendant A, if it is possible to obtain a loan by any other means, there is no reason to request the Defendant to provide the loan to Defendant A even at the expense of a large amount of fee to be paid to Defendant A.

(2) At this court, M made a statement that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that the loss sustained due to the repetition of such credit loans continued, as a matter of course, that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that Defendant A was not a company normally operated, and that Defendant A was aware of the fact that Defendant A was not a company normally operated, in this court, that Defendant A had been aware of the fact that the loss sustained due to the repetition of such credit loans continued to exist. In this case, Defendant A had no particular reason to make a false statement about the fact that Defendant A was not a company normally operated.

D) Above all, the L/C lending system operated by the victim bank was designed to enable companies operating normally the import and sales of the goods to enjoy benefits from suspending the repayment of the goods for a certain period of time (30,60,90 days) according to the bank’s credit extension. It was not a system that was made for companies applying for L/C to cover cumulative losses with only a temporary large amount of financing in the absence of any financial capacity like K. Defendant A, who had worked for a long time in the bank and operated directly by the export-import-related company for a long period of time, was well aware of the basic purpose of the L/C lending system of this case, and was directly designed to commit the crime of this case by directly using the same as the instant fraud.

E) Furthermore, even if K et al. repaid part of the amount of the credit to the victim bank during the process of so-called 'ice' or 'to avoid the delivery of the credit', it is only an circumstance after the crime is established. In addition, the amount equivalent to the deposit security provided to the victim bank in the course of the credit loan is only one which the victim bank created a pledge for the purpose of collateral, and there is no change to the fact that the victim bank approved the establishment of the credit equivalent to the amount of the fraud stated in the crime committed by the victim bank in the judgment and provided the credit equivalent to K et al. with the same amount. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant A and his accomplice acquired the total amount of

2. Defendant B, C

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants did not engage in the business of arranging loans, although they introduced A and received money in order to enable the operators of each company as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment.

B. Determination

1) The main sentence of Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Credit Business Act provides that "credit business means a business of lending money (including providing money by discounting notes, transferring for security, or in any other similar way; hereinafter referred to as "loan"), or a business of collecting claims that have been transferred from a person who registered a credit business pursuant to Article 3 or a credit financial institution under a loan agreement and collect them." Here, "business" means continuing to repeat the same act. Whether it constitutes "business" simply means to repeat the same act. Whether it constitutes "business" must be determined in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as whether a loan or brokerage of money has been made continuously or continuously, whether business has been made, the purpose, size, frequency, and mode of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4390, Jul. 12, 2012; 2012Do4390, Jul. 12, 2012);

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by these legal principles and evidence, the Defendants are sufficiently recognized to have engaged in loan brokerage business without registration under the Credit Business Act.

A) The Defendants repeated loan brokerage practices as indicated in its reasoning for a considerable period of time, approximately seven months or 15 months. If the instant crime was not discovered, the Defendants seem to continue to provide loan brokerage services by introducing those who would have difficulty in receiving loans from financial institutions to A and receive such loans.

B) There is a fact that the Defendants had separate occupation for each of them. However, the Defendants introduced and received money from the operators of each of the companies A or the above companies as stated in Paragraph 2 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the Defendants so that each of them can obtain a loan. The amount received by the Defendants was not smaller than the amount received every time they act as a broker.

C) The Defendants were clearly aware that at least A grants cash to the company operators, and furthermore, the Defendants were aware of the fact that A provided the amount equivalent to the deposit security to those who need cash, and that A provided them with a credit, and then prepared cash in a way that actually executes the import, sale, resale, etc. of goods and provided them with an amount equivalent to the deposit security.

D) Furthermore, circumstances such as the Defendants’ payment of the price for loan brokerage activities by a loan brokerage business entity without registering the loan brokerage business, in whatever name the price was paid, and whether part of the amount received as the price for loan brokerage activities was returned later, do not affect the Defendants’ establishment of a crime of violating the Credit Business Act as stated in the judgment against the Defendants.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months, but not more than 22 years and six months;

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

1) It is an offense for which the sentencing guidelines are not set for a violation of the Credit Business Act.

2) Violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

[Determination of Punishment] General Frauds No. 4 (at least five billion won, less than 30 billion won)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] ○ Aggravationd Persons: Where the method of crime is very poor

[Recommendation and Recommendation Decision] In the area of aggravation, imprisonment of not less than four years but not more than nine years (the most severe crime as a result of the sum of the amount of profit is higher than that of the single crime, the minimum 1/3 of the sentence scope shall be mitigated)

3) Since the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes between the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are set and the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are not set, only the lower limit of each of the offenses against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(c) Determination of sentence: Two years of imprisonment;

The Defendant’s crime of running the instant unregistered credit business is a crime that infringes on the purpose of legislation of the Credit Business Act aimed at promoting the sound development of credit business, protecting finance users, and stabilizing the economic life of the people, and has great social discontinuance.

In addition, the Defendant’s fraudulent act related to the instant L/C lending is a crime that undermines the sound financial order based on credit and leads the damage to other good financial consumers, and is not good. The said fraudulent act was committed 15 times against various banks at the time, and the total amount of fraud also led to approximately 12 billion won.

However, the Defendant’s non-registered credit business crime and the L/C fraud crime were committed on the same opportunity. The amount actually acquired by the Defendant by committing the fraud is included in part of the amount actually acquired by committing the crime of non-registered credit business, and is only part of the total amount acquired.

The above circumstances and the defendant's age, family relation, environment, character and conduct, motive, means and result of the crime, and all sentencing factors as shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

2. Defendant B, C, and D

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

Each fine of not less than 50,000 won but not more than 50,000 won

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

The Defendants' violation of the Credit Business Act is an offense for which the sentencing guidelines are not set.

(c) Determination of sentence;

1) Defendant B and C: Each fine of KRW 5 million

The Defendants’ crime of running the instant unregistered loan brokerage business is a crime that violates the purpose of legislation of the Credit Business Act with the aim of promoting the sound development of the loan brokerage business, protecting finance users, and stabilizing the economic life of the people, and has a large social discontinuance. The Defendants repeatedly conducted loan brokerage business on several occasions, and each act of loan brokerage was paid as brokerage commission. However, the Defendants did not have the same criminal record.

The above circumstances and the defendant's age, family relation, environment, character and conduct, motive, means and result of the crime, and all sentencing factors as shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.

2) Defendant D: It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of a fine of not less than 20 million won.

The presiding judge, the highest judge;

Judges Yang Sung-sung

Judges Nam-tae et al

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.