A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged in this case, even though the Defendant, as stated in its reasoning, found that there was a misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles that: (a) filed an application for a payment order for the issuance of a bond; (b) filed an application for a seizure and collection order; and (c) filed an application for a compulsory auction for automobiles for the sake of D; (b) however, even though D only limited to the third party instead of the draft directly stored; and (c) did not receive any separate consideration as to the preparation of

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Article 8-4 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act prohibits a person who is not an attorney-at-law from engaging in legal acts relating to the collection of claims. However, the prohibited person is limited to a person who engages in the business of collecting claims and a person who engages in the business of collecting claims for another person (including a person who pretends to acquire claims for the purpose of collecting claims) and a person who engages in the business of collecting claims, regardless of the cause of employment, contract, delegation, etc. for such person. Thus, unless such person does not fall under "a person who has received a claim under a loan agreement from a credit service provider, credit financial institution, or credit service provider under the Loan Business Act, or a person who has received a re-transfer or re-transfer from such person, etc., the person shall not lawfully conduct legal acts related to the collection of claims (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1210, Aug. 18, 2016).