Debt collectors who cause serious harm through illegal collection, such as causing the debtor to move, change jobs, or attempt suicide, will be subject to heavier punishment. Punishment for illegal private financing will also be strengthened by increasing the recommended sentence.
The Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (Chairman Lee Dong-won) announced on the 9th that it held its 149th general meeting on the 6th and deliberated on amendments to the sentencing standards for crimes violating the Money Loan Business Act and the Debt Collection Business Act.
Sentencing guidelines are the range of recommended sentences set by the Supreme Court for each type of crime, and are a type of guideline that judges refer to when making decisions. It is not legally binding, but has advisory effect.
The Sentencing Commission included acts such as 'forcing the debtor or related person to raise funds for repayment', 'requesting repayment on behalf of a person other than the debtor', and 'openly informing the debtor of the debt at the debtor's workplace, etc.' in the scope of the first type of crime (repeated or night visit, etc.) violating the Debt Collection Act.
Considering the need for strict punishment for illegal debt collection, the Sentencing Commission also reorganized sentencing factors, including adding 'cases that cause serious harm to the victim' as a special aggravating factor.
Cases that cause serious damage to the victim are specifically defined as cases where the crime causes significant damage to the victim's family life, such as changing their lifestyle, such as moving, changing jobs, resigning from work, or taking a leave of absence, or causes extreme mental pain, such as causing extreme anxiety or fear in the victim.
This also applies to cases where damage that is difficult to recover from occurs to the victim, such as unemployment, family breakdown, interruption of school, suicide attempt or suicide, or when social reputation is seriously damaged.
The Sentencing Commission also established separate definitions for cases where special aggravated offenders' "criminal methods were very poor."
This includes cases where the means and methods of the crime were carefully planned in advance, cases where multiple people divided up roles and committed the crime in an organized manner, cases where specialized equipment and techniques were used in the crime, and cases where the person took the lead in planning the crime or played a key role.
Cases where the offender committed a crime by carrying a weapon or other dangerous object, took advantage of the actor's bad behavior such as pretending to be an organized gang member and notified of his criminal history, reported specific harm to the safety of his family, and used unfair means such as composite photos were also defined as cases in which the method of the crime was very poor.
However, the Sentencing Commission stated, "There are many cases in which violations of the Debt Collection Act are committed during the process of legitimate debt collection, and there are also cases where the person is indicted for the illegal debt collection activities of an accomplice," and designated cases of committing a crime with inadvertent intent as a special mitigating factor, distinguishing them from definite intentional crimes.
In relation to crimes that violate the Money Lending Act, the recommended sentence range was also raised in accordance with the increase in statutory punishment for violations of interest rate restrictions and illegal private finance crimes.
The basic recommended sentence for illegal private finance business was set at 10 months to 2 years and 6 months in prison, and for aggravated cases, 1 year and 6 months to 5 years in prison, raising the upper limit by one year each. The city reduced the existing prison sentence from 10 months or less to 4 months to 1 year and 2 months in prison.
In the aggravated area, if there are many specially aggravated persons, the upper limit of the recommended sentence range is increased by half (special adjustment), and since the upper limit of the aggravated area is 5 years, it is now possible to select up to 7 years and 6 months.
The basic sentence range for violations of interest rate restrictions is 6 months to 1 year and 6 months in prison, and for aggravated cases, the range has been increased to 10 months to 3 years and 6 months in prison, and for reduced sentences, up to 8 months in prison.
The Sentencing Commission set 'non-punishment or recovery of actual damages' as a general mitigating factor for crimes that violate the Loan Business Act, such as receiving brokerage fees and violating interest rate restrictions.
The Sentencing Committee explained the reason, saying, "There is an aspect of additionally protecting personal legal interests such as property rights of loan users, such as debtors, and specific victims and their damages can be assumed, and whether or not they can be recovered can also be specified and evaluated."
However, in addition, 'cases causing damage during an attempt to reach an agreement' were added as a general aggravating factor.
The Sentencing Committee plans to hold its 150th general meeting on January 11th next year to deliberate on revisions to the sentencing guidelines for digital sex crimes and to decide on the sentencing guidelines.
