(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.04.05 2017노4051 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.04.05 2017노4051

대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding the legal principles, Defendant A (misunderstanding of the legal principles and sentencing, and Defendant A received interest exceeding the statutory interest rate on April 5, 2017 in the support for the development of the Sugwon method, etc., the Act on the Registration of Loan Business, etc. and the Protection of Financial Users (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”), and the violation of the Act on the Fair Debt Collection Practices (hereinafter “Loan Business Act”), issued a summary order of KRW 7 million on May 27, 2017, which became final and conclusive on May 27, 2017. The crime of the above summary order and the crime of the lower judgment (receiving excess of the interest rate limit) committed by the Defendant A, are in the relation of a single comprehensive crime as a business offender.

As long as a summary order has become final and conclusive on a part of a single comprehensive crime, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on acquittal judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence (20,000,000 won) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant, which was unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (Cheating in Sentencing)’s sentence (10,000,000 won, confiscation) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of the lower court on Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the violation of the law on loan business due to the violation of the interest rate limitation constitutes one of the crimes at the time of the violation, and there is a substantive concurrent relationship.

It should be seen (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1235, Jan. 30, 2009; 2010Do4229, Jul. 15, 2010). The crime of the above summary order and the crime of the court below are different in terms of time and place, victim, loan and interest rate, etc., and the defendant committed the same crime repeatedly under the single and continuous criminal intent.

It is difficult to see that there is a single crime relation.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, it goes on a different premise.

참조조문

-채권의 공정한 추심에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.15 2016노1497

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2016.03.31 2015노770

-부산지방법원 2017.08.25 2017노1554

-수원지방법원 2017.12.27 2017노7204

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.16 2016노483