beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The defendant does not pay a fine.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., an unjust assertion) of the lower court’s punishment (e., a fine of KRW 500,00) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the lower court ex officio examined the grounds for appeal by the Defendant. Since the lower court committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by omitting the crime by omitting the attached list, even though citing the crime committed in the attached Form No. 9, the lower court cannot be maintained any more.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's argument, and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court is as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, except for addition of the attached crime list at the end of the judgment below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 15 (2) 1 and subparagraph 2 of Article 9 of the Act on the Fair Debt Collection Practices and Article 15 (2) 1 and subparagraph 3 of Article 9 of the Act on the Fair Debt Collection Practices, inclusive;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. It is recognized that the reasons for sentencing under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act are as follows: (a) the confession of the Defendant and the mistake are against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant has no criminal power; and (c) some of the circumstances leading to the instant crime are to be taken into account.
However, the crime of this case is fair by preventing debt collectors from abusing their rights or using unlawful means, because the defendant visited the victim 11 times repeatedly, arouses anxiety by repeatedly speaking, and impairs privacy and business peace.