A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. A person who intends to engage in credit business in violation of the Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users Act shall register the relevant place of business in each Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, Special Self-Governing City Mayor, Do Governor, or Special Self-Governing Province Governor, who has jurisdiction over the relevant place of business, and

Nevertheless, the Defendant lent KRW 215,00,000 to C at an interest rate of 509% per annum from the French land around June 29, 2012 without registering credit business to the competent authorities, and from that to November 19, 2013, the Defendant lent KRW 6,317,369,145 in total in excess of the limited interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act, as shown in the attached crime list, from that point to November 19, 2013.

Accordingly, the Defendant was running a unregistered credit business and loaned the loan exceeding the limited interest rate provided in the Interest Limitation Act.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Fair Collection of Claims Act is the debt collector who actually runs a credit business without registering the credit business.

No debt collector shall, in connection with debt collection, express his/her intention to collect any invalid or unexistent debt to any debtor or his/her related person.

On February 24, 2014, the Defendant received the entire interest higher than the limited interest rate prescribed by the Act on the Restriction of Principal and Interest in relation to the money loaned to D, from the Suwon District Court's civil execution department located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and thus, even though there is no claim against D, the Defendant requested the Suwon-si District Court to issue a seizure and collection order as of February 26, 2014, on the ground that D holds a notarial deed prepared by D, and received the decision of seizure and collection order as of February 26, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant collects the debt as a debt collector who does not exist in relation to the debt collection.