Man Acquitted in Case Involving 596% Annual Interest on 2 Billion Won Loan

In a surprising turn of events, a 40-year-old man, identified only as Mr. A, has been acquitted in the first trial of charges related to usurious lending. Accused of lending approximately 2 billion won to an acquaintance facing financial difficulties and subsequently charging interest rates as high as 596% annually, Mr. A was found not guilty by the Gwangju District Court.

“

The indictment's crime list merely listed all account transaction details between Mr. A and Mr. B, and then the legal representative of Mr. B, through armchair reasoning, accepted it as if the defendant had repaid up to this point in interest and principal, and the investigative agency accepted it as is.

The court's decision hinged on significant flaws identified in the prosecution's case. Judge Cha Ki-hyun pointed out that the indictment was based on a speculative calculation of how much interest and principal the acquaintance might have repaid, a figure determined retrospectively by the acquaintance's legal representative. This method, the court argued, lacked a solid factual basis and improperly expanded the scope of criminal liability.

“

The defendant and Mr. B were acquaintances who had known each other for a long time, and the transaction began when Mr. B, who was experiencing business difficulties, was lent money. The transaction continued solely through verbal agreements without any loan contracts or promissory notes from beginning to end.

Mr. A and the acquaintance, Mr. B, had a long-standing relationship, and the initial lending occurred through verbal agreements without any formal contracts or loan documents. Despite repeated transactions involving principal repayment, interest payments, and further loans, Mr. A kept no detailed records. The court emphasized that such ambiguous transactions, lacking defined repayment periods or interest rates, are uncharacteristic of professional moneylenders. Furthermore, the absence of any aggressive debt collection activities suggested a personal arrangement rather than a commercial lending operation, leading the court to conclude that convicting Mr. A would misinterpret the legislative intent of the Loan Business Act and excessively broaden the scope of criminal punishment.

“

Given the relationship between the two individuals, the circumstances and method of the transaction, and the absence of debt collection activities, concluding that the defendant is a moneylender does not align with the legislative intent of the law and results in an excessive expansion of the scope of criminal punishment. It is difficult to consider the crime proven, so we acquit.