The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant sent text messages as stated in the facts charged to the victim, who is the child of C, with the legitimate delegation from D's earlycar E, in order to collect D's claims that have not been repaid even after lending money to the victim's mother C, and thus, the defendant's act is not unlawful as a legitimate act.

2. Although judged creditors are able to perform acts necessary for exercising their rights, such as urgings for debt collection, they shall be in accordance with legal and justifiable procedures, and their rights shall be exercised in a reasonable manner to the extent necessary to urge debtors to voluntarily perform their obligations;

(2) Article 8-3(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provides that “A debt collector shall not visit a person related to his/her debt or have him/her deliver words, letters, sound, image, or things to the related person except where he/she seeks to identify the debtor’s location, contact, or location for debt collection,” and “a related person” in this context refers to a person living together with the debtor or living together with the debtor, a relative of the debtor, or a person working together with the debtor at the place where the debtor works together, even though the defendant is not the debtor, although the defendant was merely the child of the debtor, who is not the debtor, in light of the following circumstances established by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

(Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the same Act). It is difficult to regard it as such.