All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7682 Decided September 26, 2019 【Violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users; Violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether the term “lending of money” stipulated in Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users has to fundamentally include as its elements of concept the act of providing credit by providing money under the premise that a certain amount of money will be redeemed at least over a certain period, irrespective of the manner or means of transaction (affirmative) In the case where money is provided via transactions of purchasing goods or services at discounted prices, whether it is against the principle of no punishment without law to consider cases in which the above elements of concept of lending money are difficult to be recognized with respect to the said provision of money as the lending of money under the same Act (affirmative) [2] In the case where: (a) the Defendant uploaded an advertisement containing the phrases “Microloan and Encashment of Micropayment” on the website; (b) the Defendant made the clients, who contacted the Defendant upon reading this ad, to purchase gift vouchers through micropayments and inform him of the PIN number that is authenticated after the purchase of gift vouchers; (c) in this way, the Defendant deducted a certain sum of money from the face value of the gift vouchers purchased by the clients as advance interest and lent the remaining amount of money as a loan; (d) the Defendant then sold the above PIN numbers to gift voucher sellers, thereby running an unregistered money lending business; (e) the Defendant was charged with violating the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users, the case holding that: (a) the Defendant’s purchase of gift vouchers at discounted prices from the clients and provision of money as the purchase payment of the said gift vouchers are difficult to be considered to have satisfied the elements of concept of money lending, and thus, does not constitute the “lending of money” that is subject to legal regulation; and (b) thus, the lower court that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged under different assumptions erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine |
|
