The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant introduced a person to D and E to enter the Republic of Korea for marriage with a Korean national woman of the Philippines, accompanied by the travel of the Philippines, provided interpretation, etc. and provided travel expenses from D and E, and did not receive any fee for marriage brokerage.

In addition, the defendant, who is a person of international marriage, was aware of that he was a member of the normal family company.

D, taking into account the fact that the defendant recommended international marriage to D, and that the amount received by the defendant was over KRW 50-150 million, the defendant continued to engage in marriage brokerage business continuously and repeatedly.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the ground that the Defendant alleged the same as above, and the lower court stated in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment in detail under the title “reason of guilt” in the judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just.

The legal statement of E by a witness at the trial meeting part of the Defendant’s argument is inconsistent with the statement made by an investigative agency as to the important matters, such as ① the background leading up to the Philippines, whether he was introduced by the female of the Philippines, and whether the Defendant was traveling expenses, and ② E made a statement to the effect that he was satisfing in the Philippines for business purposes, but the project was carried out.

There is no evidence to see, the investigative agency did not make such a statement, and the defendant did not make a statement to the Republic of Korea that he / she was frighten in the Philippines for the purpose of the project, and c) E is a person engaged in daily labor.