The meaning of "business" such as lending money, etc. under the main sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users, and the standard for determining whether such lending constitutes such business

Article 2 subparag. 1, Articles 3 (1), and 19 (1) 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do11068 Decided February 29, 2008 (Gong2011Do1985 Decided March 29, 2012) Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1985 Decided July 12, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1470)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013No726 decided June 21, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”) provides that “Credit business” means a business of lending money (including granting money by discounting notes, transferring security, or using any other similar means) or a business of collecting claims arising from a loan agreement from a person who has registered his/her credit business pursuant to Article 3 or a credit financial institution.” Here, “business” refers to continuing to repeat the same act. Whether it constitutes “business” refers to a continuous repetition of the same act. Whether it constitutes “business” should be determined in accordance with social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the purpose, size, frequency, mode, etc. of the act, regardless of whether the person or material facilities required therefor have been installed (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1985, Mar. 29, 2012, etc.).

The court below acknowledged that the defendant lent money to the general credit service provider in the manner that the general credit service provider takes, such as lending money to the highest monthly interest rate of 5% through Nonindicted 1, 2, etc., deduction of advance interest, etc., and determined that Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 engaged in a business of lending money by taking full account of the following: (a) consistently with the investigative agency from the first instance court to the first instance court; (b) there is no circumstance to doubt the credibility of the statement; (c) there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement; (d) the defendant lent money to the persons who have been well aware of it over a long-term period; (b) the defendant borrowed money several times; (c) the defendant was paid high interest rate and repeatedly lent money in the name of a third party; and (d) the defendant primarily lent money in the name of a third party, not in his name; and (e) the defendant

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending

On the other hand, the violation of the Credit Business Act is clear that a prosecution has been instituted for the defendant's repeated lending of money over several occasions without registering the credit business. In the case of a single comprehensive crime, even if it is not specifically specified for each act constituting the same crime, if the whole period and completion period of the crime, the method and place of the crime, the other party, the frequency of the crime, and the total amount of damages, etc. are specified, the crime is specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do16001, Sept. 13, 2012). Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the charge was not specified on the grounds that the defendant did not specify the date and amount of the loan for each debtor, etc. is not acceptable.

2. As to intimidation

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant intimidation on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)