The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for appeal

A. Article 6(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11758, Apr. 5, 2013; hereinafter “former Capital Markets Act”) defines “financial investment business” as a business that falls under any of investment trading business, investment brokerage business, collective investment business, investor door-making business, investment day, forestry, and trust business, and “investment brokerage business” as a business that sells and purchases financial investment instruments on another person’s account in whosever named, and includes soliciting offers, offering, accepting offers, or accepting offers for the issuance and acceptance of securities.

B. Review of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court reveals the following facts.

(1) A mutual savings bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C Savings Bank”) changed the method of public offering transaction into “the method of settlement of profits” as in the instant case, when the previous method of public offering transaction changes and losses depending on the market price of stocks.

(2) C Savings Bank entered into a “public share purchase and sale contract (demand forecast agency)” with TNT, corporation, MSD (hereinafter collectively referred to as “investment advisory company”) respectively.

According to the above contract, if the investor's subscription price and service fee are deposited in the account designated by the Savings Bank prior to the payment date of the subscription price, the Savings Bank paid the subscription price to the securities company and received the allocation of the subscription price to the investment advisory company, and transferred it to the investment advisory company.

(3) The investor’s door-to-door items, volume, and price of the subject matter of subscription were determined.