Defendants shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, only 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 4, 2016, Defendant A lent KRW 4 million to E from the F station of the E’s operation located in Ma in Ma on February 4, 2016, and granted KRW 3.6 million after deducting KRW 4 million as the monthly interest, from KRW 400,000,000 per annum from March 2016 to January 2017, Defendant A borrowed KRW 25.2 million per annum to E seven times from around that time to November 2, 2016, and received interest at KRW 133% per annum.

Accordingly, the Defendant received interest exceeding the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.

2. Defendant B lent KRW 15 million to E from the F week of the operation of E in the end of the end of the end of the year on September 28, 2016, and granted KRW 13.5 million after deducting KRW 1.5 million as the interest of the first month, and received KRW 1.5 million per annum from October 2016 to January 2017 as the monthly interest, and received KRW 1.33% interest per annum from January 2016 to January 25, 2017 as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table (2).

Accordingly, the Defendant received interest exceeding the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning interrogation of suspects of E by each prosecutor's office;

1. Application of each statute on a loan certificate;

1. Article 8 (1) and Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Limitation of Interest on the Punishment of Specific Crimes and the Selection of Punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the attraction of a workhouse;

1. The Defendants, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, leased money to E several times, and received interest exceeding the highest interest rate prescribed in the Interest Limitation Act.

However, the Defendants appear not to be a person engaged in a specialized loan business, and there seems to have been a request for active loan of E in the course of each of the crimes in this case (the Defendants were unable to receive principal from E, and they were fraud.