beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant did not enter into an interest agreement at the time of lending money to the other party to the transaction as stated in the attached crime list Nos. 2 of the lower judgment, and was paid in excess of the principal of the loan to the other party. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on Interest Limitation, which is an ancillary charge against the Defendant, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The punishment of the lower court (four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine are based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant has lent to the other party to the transaction the amount of KRW 5 million through KRW 10 million for a short period of six to twenty days, and received to the other party to the transaction the amount of KRW 100,000 won or KRW 300,000 (the amount equivalent to KRW 52% or KRW 146% of the principal at the time of the annual interest rate conversion) in addition to the principal. ② Article 4 of the Interest Limitation Act provides, regardless of the names such as deposit (deposit), discount, fees, fees, substitute payment, and other titles, the Defendant’s receipt of money lending by the creditor shall be deemed as interest.
In full view of the facts stated in the judgment below, (3) there is no special circumstance to see that the other party to the transaction has paid the principal to the defendant in excess of the principal as above, and (4) When considering the fact that C/N, the other party to the transaction, stated in the investigation agency that the principal was paid to the defendant in excess of the principal amount (Evidence No. 803, 1197 of the evidence record), the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below that the defendant received interest from the above other party to the transaction in excess of the highest interest rate are sufficiently recognized, and the facts alleged by the defendant and the legal principles are erroneous.