Defendant 1 and eight others

Prosecutor

The decoration, the current trial (public trial)

Busan District Court Decision 2013Ra2005 Decided October 10, 2013

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the amount of 17% deducted from the loan amount in the form of security deposit or investment deposit at the time of lending money constitutes interest, even though the Defendants could have acknowledged that they lent money to debtors beyond the interest rate prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it did not constitute interest, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting

2. Determination

The court below held that, in light of the fact that Co-Defendant 3, Defendant 7 paid only to the debtor the remaining amount after deducting 17% of the nominal loan amount from the nominal loan amount in the form of deposit or investment deposit at the time of loan, but the debtor agreed to return the principal or the principal and interest when the debtor redeems the principal and interest, and the fact that some of the debtors are deemed to have returned the amount equivalent to 17% of the above amount pursuant to the above agreement, it is difficult to view the above deposit or the investment deposit forms as the interest received by the credit service provider, and there is no evidence to prove that other defendants assisted the above Defendants in the charges.

In this regard, the prosecutor asserts that the Defendants’ security deposit or investment amount should also be regarded as interest in the form of loan, regardless of the name of the credit service provider, such as honorarium, discount, fee, mutual aid fund, overdue interest, substitute payment, etc., in calculating the interest rate under paragraph (1). However, the purport of this provision is that the Defendants’ payment or investment amount should also be regarded as interest in the form of loan, regardless of the name of the credit service provider, i.e., the non-returnable money received by the credit service provider. The purport of the provision is that the Defendants’ payment or investment amount should be regarded as interest in the form of loan, etc. In addition to the fact that the debtors agreed to return the principal or the interest rate of 17% when the debtors redeem the principal or the principal and interest of the loan, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the difference in the amount of loan or investment amount as being deducted by the amount equivalent to 17% as the basis of the principal or the agreement.

In this regard, it does not exceed the limited interest rate even if the actual principal of the loan is deducted by 17%.

Therefore, the court below that acquitted the Defendants on the same purport is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.

3. Conclusion

Since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)