The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant did not constitute “a person collecting claims” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “Credit Collection Act”), the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s application for the change of indictment as of November 9, 2018, the court must permit the change of indictment before the closing of the trial to the extent not impairing the identity of the facts charged. However, as to the change of indictment which was lawfully notified by the date of the judgment, even if it was filed with the motion for resumption of pleadings, the prosecutor does not have a duty to resume the hearing of the closed trial and permit the change of indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6484, Dec. 26, 2003) (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do6484, Nov. 3, 201); Article 3 of the Criminal Act (see Article 4 of the Criminal Act); Article 7(1) of the Criminal Act (see Article 7(1)); Article 9(1) of the Criminal Act (see Article 7(1) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc.; Article 7(3) of the Criminal Act (see Article 9(1)7) of the Criminal Act); Article 9(1) of the Act) of the Criminal Act).

(b) Reasons for appeal by the defendant.