The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the Defendant was the representative of the Defendant, F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) requested D to lend KRW 150 million for the purchase of equipment from the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and F leased KRW 150 million by directly purchasing equipment and providing it to G. As such, F entered into a monetary consumption lending contract between F and G.

Therefore, F should be viewed as a monetary lending creditor even for D which he/she has acquired the above monetary debt overlappingly.

In addition, in full view of the contents and frequency of text messages sent by the Defendant to E, it can be evaluated that the Defendant’s sending of text messages to E constitutes an act that seriously undermines privacy or peace in business by inducing fear or apprehension of E or threatening to E.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records. The court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty of the charge of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which is the primary charge of the defendant's collection of claims, on the ground that the defendant is not a person to collect claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, because it is difficult to view the defendant as a "person to collect claims prior to the payment" on the basis of the circumstances stated by the court below. It is erroneous in the misapprehension

As such, the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit (the prosecutor submitted a petition of appeal against the judgment of the court below and clearly stated the scope of appeal in whole, and the reason for appeal submitted thereafter is the primary charge of this case.