The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s use of the name cards “A” (hereinafter “instant name cards”) as stated in the judgment of the court below, but cannot be deemed as falling under the name similar to that of a licensed real estate agent.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles which found guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of the establishment of a brokerage office is that only a licensed real estate agent or juristic person may be registered. Thus, the name representing the representative of the brokerage office is likely to mislead the general public as a licensed real estate agent (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007). 2) The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. In other words, ① the defendant was registered as a brokerage assistant at the Daegu-gu Office of Real Estate Agents (Road address: Daegu-gu Licensed Real Estate Agent Office) operated by C, a licensed real estate agent, from Jan. 21, 2013 to Jan. 16, 2014. ② The name of the defendant used as stated in the judgment of the court below as a brokerage assistant in the real estate transaction office, including the name of the above certified real estate agent (D) and the address of the E-owned real estate agent, and the address of the E-owned real estate agent as well as the address of the E-registered office.