A. Since a juristic person and a natural person who is an employee of a juristic person in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act clearly distinguish between a juristic person and an employee of the juristic person, an act of collecting a debt of a juristic person C which is a juristic person constitutes an act of collecting a debt of another person, and when a juristic person creditor delegates or instructs the act of collecting a debt of a juristic person to its employees based on the existing work relations, such an employee is a person who collects a debt of another person in return for money or other economic benefits.

B. Defamation part is recognized that the Defendant defames the victim D by pointing out false facts as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is reasonable in its holding that ① a person who collects a claim under Article 2 (1) (d) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “Credit Collection Act”) refers to a person who collects another person’s claim, not his/her claim, by receiving or promising to receive money or economic benefit from the debt collection act in return for the money or economic benefit to him/her. It does not mean a person who collects another person’s claim, not his/her claim. It does not include a case where an employee of the company collects a claim against a third party as part of his/her business, and it does not include a case where he/she collects a claim against a third party as part of his/her business, and ② there was a witness F’s statement consistent with the facts charged for defamation, but in light of various circumstances described in Article 5 of the sentence

For lack of view, the lower court acquitted all the facts charged of the instant case.

B. The court below's judgment is based on the records.