The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses incurred in relation to witnesses shall be borne by the defendant from among the costs of trial in the trial.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not lend the registration certificate of a brokerage office to the defendant and affixed B without permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below constitutes a case where the violation of the law or mistake of fact affects the judgment.

In addition, the punishment (250 million won) set by the court of the original instance is too unreasonable.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined as to the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles together with the witness B’s legal statement in the appellate court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In regard to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the defendant is aged and there is no other criminal history.

However, the defendant's act of the crime of this case harms the social trust in the qualification of authorized brokerage by lending the registration certificate of the brokerage office, and the defendant withdraws certain profits in return for the act of this case.

The court of the court below decided punishment in consideration of such various positive and negative circumstances as above, and exempted the collection of additional collection of profits under the Criminal Act.

The judgment below

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

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it shall not be deemed that the punishment determined by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

According to Articles 191(1), 190(1), and 186(1) main text of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is reasonable that the Defendant bears the expenses for the witness out of the litigation costs for the party deliberation (in case of an essential national election).