logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.05.27 2014도789
대부업의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that interest was paid within the scope of interest rate limit, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, lent KRW 1 million to D on March 30, 2005 and April 4, 2005, respectively, on the condition that the Defendant, as a credit service provider, received interest of KRW 100,000 for each ten-day interest rate of KRW 100,000,000,000. On June 19, 2012, the lower court violated the Act on Registration of Loan Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”).

The decision was determined.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion that the statute of limitations has expired, the violation of the law on the lending business due to the violation of the limitation on interest rates constitutes one crime at each time of the violation. However, if the same victim violated the law on the lending business through several times for a certain period, if the criminal intent is single and the method of crime is identical, a single crime is established. The statute of limitations for a single crime begins from the time when the last criminal act is completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002, etc.). The lower court found the Defendant guilty by deeming that the Defendant entered into a loan agreement with D on March 30, 2005 and April 4, 2005, concluded a loan agreement with D, and received a loan agreement with D and received a total of 12,756,200 won exceeding the limitation rate until June 19, 2012.

As to this, the Defendant’s crime committed from December 27, 2012 to five years before the prosecution of the instant case was completed.

The argument is asserted.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, Defendant’s act of violation of the law on lending business is a single criminal intent and the method of crime is a single comprehensive crime with the same criminal intent, and the termination date of crime is June 19, 2012, and is five years after the completion of the crime.

arrow