The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding the legal principles, did not lend his certificate of qualification as a certified broker, since he directly handled an important business of brokerage, such as signing his seal imprint in the brokerage column of the instant sales contract, and H only assisted activities, such as field guidance.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the lending of the certificate of a certified broker and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) based on the adopted evidence reveals that the instant sales contract that G entered into was sexually stolen by introducing and arranging H, an unqualified person, and that the seal of the Defendant, who is the holder of the certificate of qualification, was affixed to the said contract.

In light of the process and overall process of the transaction, the defendant lent a certificate of qualification so that the defendant can perform the duties of the certified broker.

The Court determined that it was sufficient to view it.

2) The judgment of this court) The term “loan of qualification certificate of an authorized broker” prohibited by the former Act means that another person knowingly lends his/her qualification certificate to a certified broker with the knowledge that he/she intends to perform his/her duties by using his/her qualification certificate. On the other hand, whether an unqualified person performs his/her duties should be determined depending on whether he/she actually performs his/her duties by using the name of the certified broker (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do934, Mar. 29, 2007). (B) The above legal principle should be duly adopted by the court below and examined by evidence.