The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

Nos. 1 through 4 of seized evidence shall be charged to the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to misunderstanding of facts, according to the Defendant’s receipt of interest in excess of the rate of restriction, the Defendant lent money exceeding KRW 200 million to the Defendant’s obligor. 2) The fact that the Defendant used intimidation, and the fact that the Defendant committed the act of collecting claims (excluding the part in attached Form 2) causing fears or apprehensions, as stated in this part of the facts charged, did not have any act of collecting claims by threatening the obligor as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there was no fact that there was no act that seriously undermines the privacy or peace of business by repeatedly visiting the obligor or communicating the obligor to the obligor, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In light of the relevant legal principles and the public trial-oriented principle, comprehensively considering the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance, unless there are exceptional cases deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness in the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010).

As to the receipt of interest exceeding the limit on interest rate, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

In light of the above relevant legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below is just, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

The defendant is the defendant.