2. The following facts can be considered: (a) the fact that the Defendant appears to recognize and reflect all of the crimes; (b) the fact that there is no other criminal history other than the fine imposed once due to the violation of the Labor Standards Act prior to the instant crime; and (c) the principle of equity when the judgment was rendered concurrently with the case of violating the Act on Publication of Real Estate Prices and Appraisal and Evaluation, which became final and conclusive, may be considered as favorable

However, the defendant intentionally prepared a false appraisal report in violation of his duty as an appraiser to fairly evaluate the price for the purpose of appraisal for the purpose of assessing the value of collateral. As a result, the defendant's appraisal was a means to commit fraud by G Co., Ltd. which requested appraisal, and the defendant's appraisal price differs from approximately KRW 7.4 billion. Considering that the defendant's appraisal price was stated in the appraisal report to the effect that he considered the possibility of development of surrounding land, there are significant differences, even though he stated that the defendant made M to make a false statement about the fraud case against G, as if M was written, the defendant had been subject to disciplinary action three times due to similar misconduct in the previous case, and there was no reason to impose a fine not consistent with the quality of the crime to avoid separate disciplinary action even if he was judged simultaneously with the case of violating the Act on Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Price for which judgment became final, and there is no other reason to impose a fine otherwise, the defendant's age in the present case's circumstances, family relation, etc.