The judgment below

Among them, around February 1, 201, around March 10, 201, around April 5, 201, around April 5, 201, around June 17, 201, and around August 8, 201.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the acquitted portion of violation of the respective restrictions on interest under the respective monetary consumption and lending agreement on February 1, 201, around March 10, 2011, around April 5, 201, around June 17, 2011, and around August 8, 201, as to the non-guilty portion of violation of the respective restrictions on interest under the respective monetary consumption and lending agreement

A. Article 8(1) of the former Interest Restriction Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) amended by Act No. 10925, Jul. 25, 2011; and enforced October 26, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “Any person who has received interest exceeding the highest interest rate prescribed in Article 2(1) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine not exceeding ten million won.

“The instant penal provision was newly established (hereinafter “instant penal provision”). B. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court leased to F the amount calculated by deducting each of the interest rates at KRW 500,000,000,000 from each of the instant penal provisions on April 5, 2011, around KRW 500,000,000,000 around March 10, 201, and around June 17, 2011, and around KRW 50,000,000,000 around June 17, 2011, around KRW 5,000,000,000 from each of the interest rates under the Interest Restriction Act, after the enforcement of the instant penal provision.

As to the changed facts charged in this case, “The instant penal provision shall be strictly interpreted to apply only to the conclusion of an agreement on lending and borrowing of money exceeding the limited interest rate after its enforcement and the receipt of interest accrued therefrom, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning. As the agreement on lending and lending of money in this part is obvious prior to the enforcement of the instant penal provision, it determined that the modified facts charged constitute a case that does not constitute a crime.

(c)

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) Article 1 of the former Interest Limitation Act provides for the appropriate maximum limit of interest, thereby contributing to the stabilization of national economic life and the realization of economic justice.

Article 2(1) provides that “The sub-lease of gold shall be made by contract.”