logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.09.25 2019도4368
전기통신사업법위반등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 19(1)1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides that a person who runs credit business, etc. without registering with the Mayor/Do Governor under Article 3 of the same Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won.

The Credit Business Act provides that "credit business" is a business of lending money (including lending money by discounting notes, transferring for security, or by any other similar means) or a business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement from a credit service provider or a registered credit financial institution."

(Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Credit Business Act provides for matters necessary for the registration and supervision of credit business and loan brokerage business, and regulate illegal debt collection and interest rates of credit business operators and credit financial institutions, thereby ensuring the sound development of credit business, protecting finance users and contributing to the stability of the people's economic life.

(1) In light of the relevant provisions and legislative purpose of the Credit Business Act, the prior meaning of the “loan of money,” and the nature and effect of the bill discount and the transfer of security, etc. cited by Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Credit Business Act, it is reasonable to view that the “loan of money” under Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Credit Business Act, as its conceptual element, must necessarily include the act of providing credit by providing money on the premise that at least a certain amount of money should be returned, regardless of the means or method of transaction, at least in the future.

For the following reasons, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants of the violation of the Credit Business Act on the grounds that there was no proof of crime regarding the Defendants’ violation of the Act.

(1)

arrow