2. Examining the instant case based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is just and acceptable for the court below to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case as stated in its holding.

We cannot accept the allegation that there is a mistake of facts affecting the judgment of the court below.

Examining the statements made by the police in the protocol of interrogation of suspect against the Defendants, it seems that the confession of the Defendants is true and consistent with the facts.

“Confessions made in the investigation agency by the Defendants was false.

“The Defendants’ assertion in the trial is difficult to accept.”

There is no criminal history of the defendants as to the illegal argument of sentencing, and there is no criminal history of the defendants.

However, the defendants' liability for the crime of leasing the certificate of authorized broker and the certificate of registration is not against the law.

Defendant

B Since it is recognized that an authorized brokerage violates Article 19(1) of the Act, a registered authority is an essential reason for revoking the registration of establishment of a brokerage office pursuant to Article 38(1)6 of the Act.

It shall not be determined by whether a sentence has been imposed on a crime under Article 49 (1) 7 of the same Act.

The court of the lower judgment rendered a sentence against the Defendants by taking account of the aforementioned various positive and negative circumstances.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance that can be considered in sentencing as a result of the sentence.

In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence is not deemed unfair.

3. Conclusion.