The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant intended to seek one or two partners to raise a shortage of real estate purchase fund, and does not intend to raise funds from many and unspecified persons.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant had received funds from many unspecified persons or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission or Authorization under related Acts and subordinate statutes lists “the act of importing investment money to the future by promising the future to pay the full amount of investment money or an amount exceeding it,” as one of the act of fund-raising business without permission or approval under related Acts and subordinate statutes. The legislative intent of regulating fund-raising business without permission or approval under related Acts and subordinate statutes lies in protecting good customers and establishing a sound financial order.

In light of such legislative intent, if any person wishes to participate in an investment, it constitutes an act of raising funds from many and unspecified persons and receiving them without delay.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1614 Decided May 26, 2006, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant posted an advertisement “investment partner,” “50% real estate purchase business, 50% real estate price, 5% a, 5% a, and fence” at the intersection, which is a living information district, around September 201, without obtaining authorization from the competent administrative agency or filing a registration report,” and the Defendant reported the above advertisement on September 26, 201.