The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant either lent a certificate of qualification of an authorized broker to E or D, or did not exceed the authority related to the authorized broker’s business; and (b) even if the agent, E or D prepared a contract beyond the authority delegated by the Defendant; (c) the Defendant reported false facts

shall not be deemed to have been the defendant, nor shall the defendant have the intention of false accusation.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant leased the Defendant’s official seal certificate to D and E around May 2012 and exceeded the Defendant’s authority related to its business. Therefore, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant filed a false accusation and filed a false accusation against D and E, even though it was well aware that D and E had the authority to prepare the contract and the tax invoice under the Defendant’s name.

A. D and E, from an investigative agency to the court of original trial, “Defendant lent his/her certificate of qualification as an authorized broker for a fee on or around May 2012, and have exceeded the authority related to the affairs of an authorized broker.”

The defendant did not limit the scope of the use of the qualification certificate and the exercise of authority to the preparation of the lease contract, etc.

The lower court consistently stated that “I” was the witness of the lower court to the same purport.

B. Although the Defendant denies the fact of lending his/her certificate of qualification as a certified broker, the Defendant: (a) reported a newspaper advertisement to seek the holder of his/her certificate of qualification as a certified broker; and (b) discussed the establishment of the certified broker office in detail; (c) received only a total of KRW 2.9 million on four occasions from D, etc. in the course of establishing and operating the office of this case (the Defendant stated in an investigative agency that “the Defendant was to receive KRW 700,000 per month from D, etc. under the pretext of medical insurance premiums, office operating expenses, taxes, etc.”; and (c) made Q in the name of the Defendant.