2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant recognized a mistake by the Defendant, and there is no history of punishment heavier than the fine, and there is no criminal record of the same kind.

However, since the registration of real estate that does not comply with the substantive legal relationship, such as the instant crime, is highly likely to be abused as a means of tax evasion and evasion as well as undermining the normal real estate transaction order, the corresponding punishment is inevitable, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, family relationship, economic situation, relationship with the name trustee, etc. as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion and is not hot.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.