logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.07.18 2014노108
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 9,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant (De facto Error and misunderstanding of legal principles) [2012 high-level 2070 case] (1) part G is paid 2 million won which did not fully deduct the actual advance interest, notarial fees, etc. with respect to the part 1 and 2 of the crime sight table of the lower court, and is paid 240,000 won by 240,000 won. The Defendant was repaid 240,000 won with respect to the principal and interest in the part once a year, and 2

G makes a statement that the defendant deducted 650,000 won as a prior interest at the time, and 2.40,000 won as a repayment rate for the principal and interest over ten times each on ten days, but this is not supported by objective evidence and is not reliable.

B. The Defendant paid 1.7 million won after deducting 300,000 won in the name of the actual prior interest and fees with respect to the fourth part of the crime table of the court below, and agreed to receive the principal and interest from 2.30,000 won on nine occasions, and the principal and interest was not repaid at all

E makes a statement that the defendant deducted 650,000 won as fees at the time and 2.455,000 won after a month, but this is not supported by objective evidence, which is not reliable, and even according to the statement of E, the principal and interest have not been repaid at all.

[2012 fixed-term 2887 case] The Defendant paid 1.60,000 won excluding 40,000 won under the actual pretext of notarial acts, and was repaid only as principal and interest on March 28, 2012, 1.40,000 won on March 21, 2012, 200,000 won on March 28, 2012, and 140,000 won on April 11, 2012.

F The defendant stated that 6.40,000 won was deducted under the name of the prior interest at the time, but this is not supported by objective evidence and there is no credibility.

Ultimately, as above, the Defendant did not have any details that were deducted from G, E, and F under the name of prior interest, etc., and the principal and interest have not been repaid almost, and the former Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Finance Users was amended by Act No. 11544, Dec. 11, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the “Gu”).

arrow