Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000 (per million). In the case of Defendant A, the above fine shall be imposed on the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 10, 2006, the Defendant registered with the head of Seo-gu in Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and registered to engage in loan business in B. The above credit service provider cannot exceed the interest rate (39%, 34.9%) prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the Loan Business Act when lending a loan to an individual or small-scale corporation. On February 28, 2007, the Defendant borrowed 3.7 million won from the above B office after deducting 6 million won as the interest rate of 6 million won for a period of one month from the date of the above B office to March 2014, the Defendant violated the restriction on the interest rate of 48.48% per annum from July 201 to March 33, 2014, including this, the Defendant was subject to the restriction on the interest rate of 300,000 won per annum 48.48% per annum from April 2014 to May 2015.

2. Defendant B, as a juristic person established for the purpose of lending business, violated the foregoing restriction on the interest rate of lending business in relation to the business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol and a written statement concerning the suspect examination of the police accused;

1. Statement protocol to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a complaint, details of payment of interest, details of payment of interest income, statement of loan funds, statement of agreement on liquidation, agreement on settlement (as set forth in list of evidence Nos. 1, 4, 11, 15, 20, 36);

1. Article 19 (2) 3 and Article 8 (1) of the Act on the Registration of Business of Loans, etc. for Criminal Facts and the Protection of Financial Users;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. It is reasonable that the amount of fine specified in the summary order of the instant case is imposed in light of the background and result of the instant case on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, the degree of benefits earned by Defendant A, equity with similar cases, etc.

subsection (b) of this section.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.