2017 Highis1308, 2018 Highis212 (combined), 2018 Highis218 (Consolidated)

Special robbery, Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement), and credit business.

Act on Registration and Protection of Finance Users, Act on Fair Collection of Claims

violation of applicable rate

A

Hephee, Kim Jong-Un, Abnormal (Public Prosecution), Kang Jong-Un, Kim Yong-Nam (Public Trial)

Attorney B (Nationalate, 2017 Highis1308)

Attorney C, D (2018 Highis212, 2018 Highis218)

April 23, 2018

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal 1)

[Status of Defendant]

The Defendant is a non-registered credit service provider of Chinese nationality who has lent gambling funds to unspecified foreigners visiting a casino game in which foreigners are allowed to enter and depart from the casino without being registered, such as receiving high interest and fees. The E.F is a Chinese person, who was known and learned at the time the Defendant was residing in the area of the Republic of China or lower in the past, and G is a Chinese person who became aware of in the course of engaging in credit business. H is a person who, under Chinese nationality, introduces those who need money for gambling in Korea from the casino in Korea and receives money from the said persons. H serves as a person who is a Chinese national, receives a certain fee from H from the casino in Korea to receive money from the said persons (hereinafter referred to as “one-day balance”) and takes the role of “one-time illness” who helps and receives money from the debtor.

“2017Gohap1308

1. A person who intends to engage in credit business or credit brokerage business in violation of the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users Act shall register with the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan Autonomous City Mayor, Do Governor, or Special Self-Govern

Nevertheless, around August 10, 2017, the Defendant loaned KRW 4 million to the Chinese nationality L (25 years of age) who intends to play a game in K Hotel casino located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on condition that he redeems the amount of KRW 5 million up to the next day with gambling funds. Accordingly, the Defendant, without registering with the competent administrative agency, was running credit business.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and special robbery;

(a) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

On August 10, 2017, at the above K hotel casino around 10:00, the Defendant conspiredd to detain the victim until he/she loses all the money from gambling, E, F, and G, as described in the above paragraph (1). On or around 10:30 of the same day, E who supervised the victim was able to take back the victim with NMobel 202 located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M, thereby locking the victim. E, F, alternately oversees the victim, and the victim “on the day before he/she fully pays the money.” From around 18:0 to 18:40 on the same day, the Defendant could not jointly gather money from G, 18:0 to 18:40 on the same day, and the Defendant could not jointly gather money from the victim to 202.7 on the one hand, with G, and the above NF’s name, and the Defendant could not get the victim to pay money to the victim.

(b) Special robbery;

Although the Defendant: (a) paid money to the victim frightened by confinement or intimidation, the Defendant demanded the victim to repay the money later because the victim had no money at present; (b) demanded the victim to pay the money later; (c) demanded the victim to take the 600,000 won of the gold and the 800,000 won of the 80,000 won of the frightened; and (d) demanded the victim to keep the money after taking the fright of the victim; (d) the victim’s face was 2,3 times of drinking by drinking after walking the victim’s face on one occasion; (e) E and G are over the fright of the victim; and (e) prevented the victim from escape.

As a result, the defendant took the property amounting to KRW 1,400,000,00, in collaboration with E, G, and name-free persons.

3. Violation of the Fair Collection of Claims Act;

No person shall assault, threaten, arrest, or detain a debtor or his/her related person in connection with debt collection, or commit any act of debt collection using a deceptive scheme or force against him/her.

Nevertheless, in collusion with the defendant, E, etc., committed unfair debt collection practices, such as confinement, assault, and intimidation of the victim, and forcibly taking possession of possessions, in order to recover from the victim's gamblings.

2018Gohap212

1. Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users;

(a) Operation of unregistered credit business;

On February 19, 2017, the Defendant, without registering a credit business, lent KRW 5 million from the above K hotel casino to 0,000, after deducting KRW 1 million from the prior interest, operated a credit business without registration for a total of three times from around that time to April 2 of the same year, including lending KRW 4 million from the above K hotel casino.

B. Although a credit service provider, whose interest rate has not been exceeded, borrowed a loan to 00,000 won per annum, as described in the above paragraph (a) around February 19, 2017, the Defendant loaned a loan to 00,000 won, deducting 1 million won per annum from a prior interest rate of 9/100,000 won, and received interest at 9/125/100 per annum from around that time to April 2 of the same year, as described in the attached list of crimes (1).

2. Violation of the Fair Collection of Claims Act;

The Defendant, together with H and I, lent money to those who use a casino in Korea as ‘one-person buttts' to those who need gambling funds, and H and I, upon the direction of the Defendant, conspired to collect claims by using the said debtor's confinement, intimidation, threat, or power.

around 01:00 on February 19, 2017, in collusion with H and I, the Defendant lent KRW 5,00,000 to the above victim who introduced H, and lent KRW 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the above victim, and H and I received an order from the Defendant to complete payment, and H and I received an order from the Defendant to make payment. From around 03:00 on February 19, 2017 to 24:00 on February 21, 2017, the Defendant took the above0,000 won in the victim’s residence, etc., and had the Defendant think about the above 0-day passport from H to 24:00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00).

3. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

The Defendant, in collaboration with H and I, detained the victims as described in the list of crimes (2) from around the time to April 3 of the same year, including jointly putting the victims0, at the time, at the place specified in the above paragraph (2). The Defendant detained the victims as described in the list of crimes (2).

1. Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users;

On April 12, 2017, the Defendant, without registering a credit business, lent KRW 20 million to T of Chinese nationality at the above K hotel, deducted KRW 3 million from prior interest, and received interest of KRW 17 million at the rate of KRW 641 per annum and received interest exceeding 25% per annum from the limited interest rate of KRW 17 million, and run a unregistered credit business.

2. Violation of the Fair Collection of Claims Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

At around 23:00 on April 12, 2017, the Defendant conspired with his name in collusion with the victim and lent KRW 20 million to the victim T, such as the above paragraph (1), deducted KRW 3 million from the prior interest and KRW 17 million.0 million. After being issued a foreign registration certificate as security, the victim was at the time of gambling and the victim lost his money at around 02:0 on April 13, 2017 from around 20 to April 06:0, the Defendant got the victim from the victim's room at the above K hotel 845 room of the above K hotel, and the police police took the victim from the casino to the time of the victim's escape from the casino to the time of 06:0 on April 13, 2017, which led the victim to the escape of two persons who borrowed money from the casino. As such, the police police continued to commit suicide from the victim's failure and threat.

Summary of Evidence

2017Gohap1308

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness L;

1. Partial statements of each police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement of the police officer against U, and statement of the police officer against L;

1. Investigation report (No. 15), CCTV caps (No. 17), photo of the victim (No. 17), no. 17, no. 18, no. 18, no. 19, no. 30, no. 32, recording records of detention house: recording (the fact that the record of meeting): recording of the suspect (the record No. 32), personal data replies, etc. (the record No. 33), No. 47, no. 7, no. 67, no. 17, no. 5, and no. 17, no. 17, no. 5, and no. 10, no. 10, no. 10, and no. 10, no. 10, and no. 10, no. 10, and no. 10, and no. 10, no. 10, and no. 10, no. 10,000).

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of witness H in the third protocol of trial;

1. Each police protocol of statement about 0, X, and Y3;

1. Report on internal investigation (A is confirmed as a person who runs a credit business), investigation report (the circumstance of running the credit business is confirmed in the text of the suspect's mobile phone and W dialogue), investigation report (the situation of running the credit business is confirmed in the text of the document on the mobile phone), investigation report (the record No. 58), investigation report (the record No. 69), investigation report (the record No. 74), investigation report (the record of the A mobile phone and text message abstract (the record of the suspect's mobile phone sent to U), W and text message abstract, No. 75), W and text message dialogueed with A are confirmed as a suspect's mobile phone (the record No. 77), W and text message connected with A, No. 920 (the record No. 91, Dec. 29, 199).

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. T legal statement of the witness;

1. Partial statements of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The written statement of witness by the prosecution against T, and the police officer's statement concerning T;

1. An investigation report (A shall be deemed to have died of a person who runs away, and shall snick letters (9 No. 9), hand-on text messages (10 No. 10).

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and choice4 of punishment);

Articles 334(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 333 (Special Robberys, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 2(2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 19(1)1 and Article 3(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users, and Article 19(2)3 and Article 11(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users, Articles 19(2)3 and 11(1) of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users, Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (the receipt of interest exceeding the interest rate of a credit service provider without registration, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 15(1) and 9 subparag. 1 of the Act on Fair Collection of Claims, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the selection of imprisonment with labor, and the selection of unlawful debt collection)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the crime of special robbery with the largest punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing has been repeatedly taken into consideration for favorable circumstances)

1. Whether confiscation is made;

As confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is voluntary, the issue of whether to confiscate an article that meets the requirements of confiscation is left to the discretion of the court except for those subject to the restriction by the proportionality doctrine applied to the general penal system (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do15805, May 24, 2013). A prosecutor seeks confiscation under Article 6, 7, 12, 15, 18, and 22 of the evidence seized in relation to subparagraph 212, but the prosecutor seeks confiscation under Article 28(1)1 of the Criminal Act. However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone does not appear to be either the article provided or intended to be provided or used only for the instant criminal act, or the article used only for the instant criminal act. It is difficult to view that there is a need to confiscate it as being helpful for the prevention of unjust enrichment. The judgment on the defendant and defense counsel’s assertion is not necessary.

2017Gohap1308

1. A person who borrowed money to the victim’s assertion is not the Defendant, but the Defendant is not the Defendant. The Defendant did not participate in or instruct the crime in the judgment of the lower court, such as: (a) confinement of the victim and taking property by force; (b) the victim is confused with a single name “AB” between the Defendant and the Defendant who was at the scene of the crime; and (c) the Defendant was designated as the offender through an erroneous criminal identification procedure.

2. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed through a comprehensive review of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, including the above-mentioned evidence, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment can be fully acknowledged. The defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted.

① The victim consistently borrowed gambling money from the investigative agency to the present court, and subsequently, was detained by E and F by the Defendant, while the Defendant was detained in the Narbel 202. The victim stated that the two persons were more and more, and that the Defendant did not take the 800,000 won and less than 600,000 won. The victim’s statement is consistent and consistent with the principal parts, such as the date, time, place, circumstances, and method of the crime, and is consistent with objective circumstances or other evidence, and thus, credibility is high. Moreover, the victim did not want punishment, and the victim did not want to make a false statement by agreement with the Defendant, and there seems to be no motive to make a false statement up to this court.

② The victim stated in the police that the face of other persons whose personal information is specified in other cases is not similar to that of the Defendant, while the other persons whose face was specified in other cases, did not correspond to the Defendant, and that the victim was not an accomplice. In the police, the victim stated in advance the Defendant as the offender the victim’s appearance of the offender at the 30th latter half of the 175cm, the victim stated in the body type, the short physical form, the head of sports, and the knish string of the 175cm color, the short physical form (72 pages of the evidence record), and the investigator presented the Defendant’s photograph to the victim, including the Defendant, and made the victim choose the offender. This can be evaluated as complying with the basic principles of the criminal identification procedure.

③ The Defendant’s female-friendly job offers at the police station that the Defendant’s body was similar to that of the Defendant (Evidence No. 21 pages) and stated that the Defendant’s body was similar to that of the Defendant (Evidence No. 21 pages). The victim clearly separates from the Defendant’s company (Defendant) the Defendant and AB, i.e., a person who directly satisf and satisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfisfat

④ At the time of the commission of the crime described in paragraphs 2 and 3, the Defendant visited E and 14 calls in total at the scene of the crime, visited 5 times after the police called E and moved to the scene of the crime. On August 21, 2017, the Defendant interviewed E on August 21, 2017. At the time, the Defendant stated that “and at the time, I would like to say that “I would like to drink I would like to drink on that day, and would not receive any money I would like to get you would look back, and I would like to say that “I would like to see Ne and I would not know at that time,” and that “I would like to say that I would like to have borrowed money to the victim, I would like to say that I would have been able to take 8 young children and take property at that time, and that I would like to be able to get the victim’s friendly victim’s 20th day of the Seoul High Court’s 20th day of the trial.

1. The assertion;

As stated in the facts charged in the judgment, there is no fact that the Defendant conspireds with the influence of name and did not arrest the victim, and there is no fact that the Defendant committed an unfair act of debt collection by confinement or intimidation. The Defendant lost all of the money borrowed by the victim and went to the K hotel room 845, together with the victim. The Defendant continued to brut the victim with the victim, and the Defendant did not arrest the victim or make a threat to the degree of drinking.

2. Determination

A. The crime of confinement is an offense in which it is impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a certain area with the protected legal interest as the freedom of action of the person, and it is possible or extremely difficult for the person to leave such area. The nature of confinement is not only physical and tangible obstacles, but also psychological and intangible obstacles. The nature of confinement is no restriction on the means and methods that restrict the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action. It is not necessarily necessary to deprive the person of the freedom of action in confinement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5286, Feb. 11, 200).

B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, including the evidence presented prior to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant could sufficiently be recognized as having detained and threatened the victim in connection with the debt collection. This part of the allegation is without merit.

① The victim consistently maintained during the investigation process, the victim had his name-free persons continue to watch himself while gambling. The victim asked his name-free persons who lost his money to a hotel with his name-free persons, and asked them to pay the money to them, and he received the money from them to his wife on the following day, and supervised the defendant from leaving the hotel up to his invasion, and the defendant was unable to flee at the hotel, and the name-free persons stated that the defendant was forced to go back from other rooms in accordance with the defendant's direction and the victim was forced to go back to the hotel. In addition, in the investigation process and this court consistent, the victim stated that the two persons who borrowed money from the casino in his name-free persons in his name-free persons to go out of the hotel, and the one person committed suicide on the rooftop because the defendant continued to go away, and the defendant called "I am and am on the police station" at the police station.

In this court, the victim stated that he was only frightened by the defendant, and that he was not frighten at the end of the defendant. However, in light of the fact that the victim made a passive statement at the prosecutor's office at the time when the defendant was the defendant and made a statement at the police without the defendant, and that the victim was unable to make a statement at the time when the defendant was unable to do so, the victim was at the time, and the defendant was at the time, and the defendant was at the hotel, and the victim was at the time, after the hotel, that the victim was fright the victim's death, and the police was at the time, that the victim was frighted with the victim, and that he was at the end of the police, and that he was at the end of the police. In light of the fact that the victim sent a text message that "I must go through our time" (Evidence record 189, 196, 197 pages) to the victim's speech, if the victim did not have any harm and injury to the victim's money.

③ Although the Defendant asserted that he was only monitoring the victim in the hotel room of the victim, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, it was intended to receive money from the victim when there was a cause that was in the hotel room with the victim, so it seems that the victim did not freely leave the hotel room. In light of such circumstances, the Defendant’s behavior and the above remarks were psychological and intangible obstacles that make it impossible for the victim to leave the hotel room before the victim’s invasion.

④ The victim stated that the Defendant and the hotel room drinked TV, and that the Defendant was dysing, and that the Defendant reported a cell phone film, even though the victim could freely engage in the act in the hotel room, the crime of confinement does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of confinement, as seen earlier, insofar as the Defendant could freely leave the hotel room.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

From June to June 22

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) A primary crime;

[Scope of Recommendation] General Criteria for Types 2 (Special Robbery) and Reduction Areas (2.6 to 4 years)

[Special Mitigation] Ad hoc Inspector

(b) A second crime (a violation of the Credit Business Act or the Claims Collection Act);

[Scope of Recommendation] Violation of Credit Business Act No. 2 (Unregistered Credit Business, etc.)

(c) A third offense (a violation of the Credit Business Act or Claims Collection Act);

[Extent of Recommendation] Violation of Debt Collection Act: Violation of Type 2 (Crime of Violence, Intimidation, etc.) (Crime of Violence, Intimidation, etc.) is committed against a large number of victims, or repeatedly committed for a considerable period of time.

[Special Mitigation] In a case where punishment is not imposed (including a serious effort for the recovery of damage) or considerable partial damage has been recovered;

(d) The final sentence scope according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: ‘‘(2 years and six months of imprisonment to five years (4 years + September + June).

- With respect to the upper limit of sentence for special robbery, which is a basic crime, the upper limit of sentence for other crimes, including 1/2 of the upper limit of sentence for violation of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. due to the operation of unregistered credit business, and 1/3 of the upper limit of sentence for violation of the Act on the Fair Collection of Claims by Financial Users;

3. Determination of sentence;

In light of the legislative intent of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users with the aim of protecting the financial users and contributing to the stabilization of the economic life of the people, the Defendant’s act of receiving interest in excess of the limited interest rate has to be strictly controlled. The Defendant committed debt collection by unlawful means, such as confinement of many victims and intimidation. The Defendant’s act goes against the legislative intent of the Act on Fair Debt Collection of Claims aiming at developing a fair debt collection climate and protecting the obligor’s life and a peaceful life worthy of human dignity. Furthermore, the Defendant detained the victims jointly with his accomplices, and took the goods by assaulting and threatening them under the custody of the victims. In light of the aforementioned criminal law, risk, and legislative intent of each of the above Acts, the crime and the criminal intent are considerably poor.

However, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea, and the fact that a considerable number of victims and full agreement has been reached shall be considered as favorable circumstances, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances indicated in the records of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by the court.

The presiding judge, judges, and the Yellow Constitution

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges Kim Gin-young

1) Violation of the defendant’s right of defense based on the facts found based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court

To the extent that the criminal facts were not modified, part of the criminal facts were corrected.

2) According to the provision on the maximum interest rate under Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014), in the case of unregistered credit service providers,

The interest rate under the loan agreement established after July 15, 2014 is 25% per annum. Thereafter, the said provision is amended by Presidential Decree No. 28413, Nov. 7, 2017.

From February 8, 2018, the interest rate of 24% per annum shall apply. Accordingly, the interest rate of 25% per annum shall apply at the time the accused was committed.

3) The evidence list is also written as "Z", but it is obvious that it is a clerical error. The same shall apply hereinafter.

4) The prosecutor prosecuted a violation of the Fair Collection of Claims in its holding and a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) as a substantive concurrent offense.

C. Among lower courts, each of the above crimes is deemed to be in a mutually competitive relationship, but only the act of confinement is unlawful in the instant case.

Illegal confinement even after the act of unlawful debt collection was committed, not as a means for debt collection, but as a means for assault, intimidation, or coercion.

Considering the fact that each of the above crimes is continued, it is judged that there is a substantive concurrent crime relationship.

5) On March 19, 2018, 218, 2018, 2017, 2017, 1308, a prosecutor may engage in credit business following the non-registered credit service of the case at the first trial date ( March 19, 2018).

Public prosecution against a violation of the Act on the Registration and Protection of Financial Users is first instituted for a loan without registration in the case of 2018 Gohap212(2017 Godan6192)

The purpose of adding and changing the facts charged for violating the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users following the running of business is expressed.

Therefore, it is deemed that Amendments to Bill of Indictment have been made.