The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the name “Dres A”, does not constitute a certified intermediary or similar name, taking into account the circumstances at the time.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 8 of the Act provides that no person, other than an authorized brokerage, shall use the name of an authorized brokerage agent or similar. Article 18(2) provides that a person, other than an authorized brokerage agent, shall not use the name “authorized brokerage office”, “real estate brokerage”, or “other similar names.”

In addition, whether it constitutes a similar name ought to be determined depending on whether there is a risk that ordinary persons might mislead a person using the name as an authorized broker (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12437, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the use of a name with the name named “DD Presid” as indicated in the facts charged constitutes a case where an ordinary person uses an “a name similar to an authorized broker,” which is likely to mislead a defendant as the representative of an authorized broker office, by aggregating the word “real estate” or the area where a brokerage office is located and the term “114” in the same form.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) The lower court’s judgment on the wrongful assertion of sentencing shall be punished by a fine, taking into account all favorable and unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant has no same criminal history.