beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.09.29 2017노1612

채권의공정한추심에관한법률위반

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty as to the violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the Defendant’s act of making a phone call four times on the date of the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty as to the remainder of the facts charged. Since the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal on the part of innocence, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s and the Prosecutor’s guilty portion was separate and finalized upon the lapse of the appeal period, the lower court should have determined that the Defendant’s and the Prosecutor

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) a demand call for the victim four times more than the same period was made at the same time with a demand demand call for payment of debts to the victim; (b) therefore, the victim’s standpoint, despite the number of telephone calls by the defendant, shall be deemed to constitute a call for demand for payment of debts for the same period, and thus, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s demand call is a call for payment demand of all times, which

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

3. Determination

A. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) from around 13:53 on June 13, 2016 to around 18:53 on June 21, 2016, the Defendant posted a phone to the victim’s cell phone on four occasions; and (b) repeatedly, without good cause, caused uneasiness by repeatedly communicating the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment held that Article 15(2)2 and Article 9 subparag. 2 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act impose a punishment on “act which seriously undermines privacy or peace in business by repeatedly or at night reaching an obligor or the related party by repeatedly or at night without any justifiable cause, thereby inducing fear or apprehension,” and thus, the crime is “rest” of certain acts that cause fear or apprehension to the obligor, etc.