A. Since the defendant did not introduce a person for the purpose of conducting job placement services, the judgment of the court below which found him guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (fine 10,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant introduced E and F as the main employee without registering fee-charging job placement services, and sufficiently recognized the fact that he received part of the advance payment. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant had a history of punishment for the same kind of crime, the court below sentenced a fine to be reduced compared to the summary order by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there is no change of circumstances to the court below's age and occupation, and all other matters concerning the sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the court below's punishment is deemed appropriate, and therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is not reasonable.

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