Defendant

All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) M&D’s loan claim against the victim of H’s misapprehension of the legal principle does not constitute “non-existent claim” under Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. As to this part, the lower court acquitted Defendant A and acquitted Defendant B on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the above claim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) on which the Defendants were sentenced to the Defendants on account of the misapprehension of the above legal doctrine on unreasonable sentencing

B. The sentence imposed on Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged (1) The Defendant is the head of Solomon Credit Information D Branch (main) legal team at the Solomon Credit Information Company’s main business of debt collection. From around 09:09 on June 19, 2013 to around 09:28 on the same day, the Defendant loaned KRW 5 million to the victim F at the I and II Solomon Credit Information Company’s main office, but the Defendant used M phone to collect debts for which the statute of limitations has not expired, and demanded the payment of debts. (2) The Defendant expressed his/her intent to collect debts for which the Defendant did not disclose his/her non-existent claims to the victim. (3) The Defendant was the head of Solomon Credit Information D Branch, which was the main business of debt collection, and the Defendant was the head of Solomon Credit Information (main branch) with his/her own mobile phone from around 19:26, 2013 to around 19:6, 197, the Defendant changed his/her position to the said victim’s mobile phone (main).

In this respect, the defendant does not exist.