The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below which acquitted the whole of the facts charged of this case on the summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous as follows.

A. Since a juristic person and a natural person who is an employee of a juristic person in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act clearly distinguish between a juristic person and an employee of the juristic person, an act of collecting a debt of a juristic person C which is a juristic person constitutes an act of collecting a debt of another person, and when a juristic person creditor delegates or instructs the act of collecting a debt of a juristic person to its employees based on the existing work relations, such an employee is a person who collects a debt of another person in return for money or other economic benefits.

B. Defamation part is recognized that the Defendant defames the victim D by pointing out false facts as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is reasonable in its holding that ① a person who collects a claim under Article 2 (1) (d) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “Credit Collection Act”) refers to a person who collects another person’s claim, not his/her claim, by receiving or promising to receive money or economic benefit from the debt collection act in return for the money or economic benefit to him/her. It does not mean a person who collects another person’s claim, not his/her claim. It does not include a case where an employee of the company collects a claim against a third party as part of his/her business, and it does not include a case where he/she collects a claim against a third party as part of his/her business, and ② there was a witness F’s statement consistent with the facts charged for defamation, but in light of various circumstances described in Article 5 of the sentence

For lack of view, the lower court acquitted all the facts charged of the instant case.

B. The court below's judgment is based on the records.