logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.12.22 2017노3875
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that it is difficult to view that the court below, among the facts charged against the defendant, sent letters to the debtor who does not repay the money and found the collection of money to threaten the debtor in connection with the collection of claims

In light of the fact that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “the facts charged”) was not guilty.

However, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of having a credit service provider, a credit service provider, hotly, in the course of collecting a claim, where the Defendant sent a text message to the obligor as soon as possible, and the Defendant was found in the obligor’s residence.

As above, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that no credit service provider may assault, threaten, arrest or detain a debtor or his/her related person in connection with the collection of the claim, or use a deceptive scheme or force against him/her.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 00:00 on August 26, 2015, did not pay money from the Defendant to C on the date on which the Defendant promised to lend money from the Defendant, and upon the receipt of the deposit of D, the Defendant, as the surety, may enter documents (the parent) as stated in this note.

“Along with the transmission of text messages, “” intimidationed C’s parents to know about the amount of money if C does not repay the money, and threatened C’s parents over three times from the above day to August 27, 2015, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

B. As to the issue of intimidation against C, the lower court, on the following grounds, perceived that the content of the text message sent by the Defendant as in the Nos. 1 and 3 of the List of Offenses for the following reasons is merely an indication of a simple emotional humiliation or temporary dispersion, and notifies the harm and injury.

arrow