대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the defendant (unfair punishment) is against the defendant and there is no benefit from the crime, etc., the sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service order, and 80 hours of community service order) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
B. The court below acquitted the victim E of this part of the facts charged, although the prosecutor (the innocent and acquitted part) repeatedly sent phone and text message to the victim E, and the defendant continued to cause the victim to feel uneasiness until the victim received phone, and the court below acquitted the victim of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The claims collector of this part of the facts charged shall not engage in any act that seriously undermines privacy or peace in business by repeatedly or at night, such as speaking, writing, sound, or image, reaching the debtor without justifiable grounds, thereby inducing fear or apprehension.
Nevertheless, at around 16:26, Jan. 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) made a phone call from the Defendant to urge the obligor E to repay a debt at an unspecified place; and (b) made a phone call at a total of 32 times from the above date to July 28, 2012; (c) sent a text message to the above E at around 09:26, Jan. 15, 2012, stating “the request for payment” to the above E; and (d) made the same time from the above date to August 3: 13:31, 2012, by repeatedly reaching the above E, causing fear of privacy, thereby seriously impairing the peace of privacy.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant made a telephone or transmitted text messages to E in order to urge the repayment of debt over 214 times in total for about seven months, as stated in this part of the facts charged.