2013 Highest 849 – Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users;

Violation of the Fair Collection of Claims Act

○○ (00000 - 00000) - Duty-free

00 (Criminal Prosecution) and 000 (Public Trial)

Law Firm 00

Attorney in charge 00

April 2, 2013

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Criminal facts

From September 5, 201, the Defendant is a person who engages in credit business under the trade name of Seoul 00-Gu 0000 - 0000 - 000 , who is an employee of "00 loans" above, "one person", "one person", "one person", and "one person", whose occupation cannot be known.

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

A. On July 2012, the Defendant, at the end of Seoul 00-dong 000 - 0000 - 0000, 900,000 won, which was the amount obtained by deducting KRW 100,000 from the amount requested for a loan from KRW 1,00,000, and KRW 00,000, from the amount requested for a loan, was granted in cash to 000, and the Defendant cannot receive interest exceeding 39% per annum on a loan by allowing 33-day repayment of KRW 40,00 per 1,00,000 in the number of days. Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest at 889% per annum.

B. On August 3, 2012, the Defendant violated the restriction on the interest rate by receiving the interest rate of 1,80,000 per annum on 48-day 50,000,000 won, which is the amount calculated by deducting KRW 200,000 from the amount requested for loans from 2,00,000 won around the street near the 00-dong, Seoul, 00-dong 00-dong, from the amount that was 00 o.m., and granting the amount to 00,000 in cash, and allowing the Defendant to pay the amount exceeding 39% per annum for the number of days per 48-day o.m.

C. On August 4, 2012, the Defendant, at around 00 o.m., around 00 o.m., Seoul 00 o. o. 00 o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o

D. On September 10, 2012, the Defendant, within the “00 Health Center operated by Seoul 00-dong 000 - 000 - 00 D,” 1,250,000 won, which was the amount obtained by deducting KRW 250,00 from the amount requested for a loan from KRW 1,50,00,000, from the amount requested for a loan to D in cash, delivered KRW 1,250,000 to D in the form of 39-day payment of KRW 50,000 per 1,250,000 per annum, and could not receive interest exceeding 39% per annum at the time of a loan. Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest at the rate of 6% on 888.

E. On October 17, 2012, in collusion with the Defendant: around 00, 00 - 00 - 00 00 - 00 - 000 - 00 on the right side of the building, the Defendant violated the restriction on the interest rate by receiving the interest rate of 1,700,000 won, which is the amount obtained by deducting the interest rate of KRW 100,000,000 from the loan amount of KRW 2,000,000 from the loan amount of KRW 2,00,000,000 from the loan amount of KRW 1,70,000,000 in cash, while granting KRW 10,000 in cash to E, and making it difficult to receive the interest rate exceeding 39% per annum, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant could not receive the interest rate exceeding 39% per annum on April 1256 annually.

F. On October 19, 2012, the Defendant, within 00 Dong 00,00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 2,500 - 2,300,000 - the amount obtained by deducting KRW 200,000 from the amount requested for a loan from D in cash, delivered to D in the form of cash, having the Defendant repaid KRW 50,000 for 63 days each in the form of 50,000 and the Defendant cannot receive interest exceeding 39% per annum at the time of loan, notwithstanding that the Defendant violated the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest at 381% per annum.

G. On November 8, 2012, in collusion with F, the Defendant violated the restriction on interest rate by receiving interest rate of 436% per annum, even though the Defendant was unable to receive interest exceeding 39% per annum on the loan by allowing F to pay 1,00,000 won, which is the amount obtained by deducting 1,00,000 won from 1,00,000 won from 0,000 won in cash, at the dwelling of Seoul around 30:0,000, and (00) F.

H. On November 16, 2012, in collusion with the Defendant: around 00 on November 16, 2012, the Defendant violated the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest rate of 803% per annum from the amount of KRW 3,000,000 minus the amount of KRW 100,000,000 from the prepaid interest at KRW 3,00,000, and fee of KRW 300,000 from the prepaid interest at KRW 3,00,000 from the right side of the building, or from the right side after the building.

(i) On December 14, 2012: around 30, 200 - 00 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 000 - 2,760,000 won, which is the amount obtained by deducting 240,000 won from 3,00,000 - from 3,000 - 00 G, shall be granted to G in cash, and the Defendant may not receive interest exceeding 39% per annum at the time of the loan by allowing the Defendant to repay 70,000 won for each 70,000 days in the form of 55-day and to receive interest exceeding 39% per annum, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant violated the restriction on the interest rate by receiving the interest rate of 8% on 462.

(j) On December 25, 2012: around 00, the Defendant issued 1,350,000 won, which is the amount obtained by deducting 150,000 won from the amount of 1,50,000 won in cash from the amount of 1,50,000 won in a 000 dwelling area of Seoul 00 Dong-dong 000,000, and paid 60,000 won in excess of 39% per annum when the loan was lent to 00, the Defendant breached the restriction on the interest rate by receiving interest rate of 889% per annum, although the Defendant did not receive interest exceeding 39% per annum when the loan was lent to 00.

2. Violation of the Fair Collection of Claims Act;

A. On December 3, 2012, at around 30:30, the Defendant called 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 0 on the street, the Defendant, on the ground that he did not receive the Defendant, called the Defendant to pay the Defendant with the borrowed money, as set forth in subparagraph 1, and used the Defendant’s act of collecting the Defendant’s debt by assaulting the Defendant, i.e., taking four parts of the F’s head debt and taking four times on the ground floor, and taking four to five times the victim’s length.

B. The Defendant, in collusion with the “minimum 00” on December 20, 2012, and 19:00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 2 hhyst of the second floor of the building, the obligor, was not entitled to the Defendant’s payment of the borrowed money as set forth in paragraph 1(h). The Defendant, in collusion with the Defendant, committed the act of collecting the claim by assaulting the Defendant, such as “Chy B, while taking the bath at the same bit of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch chine,

C. On December 31, 2012: (a) the Defendant: (b) did not receive the phone on the date of repayment; (c) called the obligor’s loan contract document to the mobile phone of 000 entered as a joint guarantor; and (c) then called the obligor’s loan contract document to “it is impossible to deposit interest; (c) it is now impossible to deposit it; and (d) funch “I am? I am? I am? I am you am? I am you am? I am you am? I am you am, I am, I am, I am we am? I am am? I am you am am you am? I am am am you am you am? I am am you am you am? I am am you am you am you am you am you am you am you am.? I am am you am you am

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement of F, E,00,00, C,00, 000, and D;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts: Articles 19 (2) 3 and 8 (1) of the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (Provided, That Article 30 of the Criminal Act shall be added to the cases of subparagraph 1-e, g, and h of the holding), Articles 15 (1) 1 and 9 subparagraph 1 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Provided, That Article 30 of the Criminal Act shall be added to the cases of subparagraph 2 of the holding);

1. Heavy concurrent crimes: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there are no substantial profits, the fact that the credit business has been discontinued by this case, the fact that most victims have agreed with each other, and the fact that the previous crime is only once a fine);

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Choi Jong-chul