The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The name of “D Real Estate Claim A” used by the Defendant is not similar to that of a licensed real estate agent. 2) The Defendant used D real estate after borrowing the registration certificate of a brokerage office, which was involved in the management of D real estate as an intermediary, assistant or partner of F of the licensed real estate agent, and the Defendant did not borrow the registration certificate of a brokerage office from F.

B. In light of the circumstances and economic circumstances causing the Defendant to commit the instant crime, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the establishment registration of a brokerage office for the use of a similar title as a licensed real estate agent is provided for only a licensed real estate agent or corporation. Thus, the name which represents the representative of the brokerage office is likely to mislead the general public as a licensed real estate agent (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9334, Mar. 29, 2007). The name “D Real Estate Director” used by the Defendant constitutes a “title similar to that of the licensed real estate agent” as it is dangerous for the general public to mislead the person using the name as the representative of the licensed real estate agent office. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the use of the brokerage office registration certificate by borrowing the brokerage office registration certificate from the F and it is sufficient to find the fact that the Defendant borrowed the brokerage office registration certificate from the F and used it. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is also unacceptable.

B. Although determining the allegation of unfair sentencing, the Defendant.