The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the crime of violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name among the crimes of this case is an act contrary to the intent of the Act to prevent speculation, evasion, evasion of laws, etc. which abuse the real estate registration system, to normalize the transaction of real estate, and to stabilize the price of real estate. The crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act also goes against the intent of the Act to ensure the safety

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and the background and motive leading to the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too large.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

[On the other hand, the Defendant asserted only unfair sentencing in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within a lawful deadline as the grounds for appeal, and in the written application for coal submitted on March 17, 2020, the Defendant’s act of violating the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name was made on December 30, 201 and the statute of limitations has been imposed. ② Violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name was not the Defendant, but the Defendant’s act of violating the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

c) allegation of mistake to the effect that it has been made.