The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant provided investment advisory services to many unspecified persons, and did not provide investment advisory services; and (b) therefore, there is no fact that the Defendant is engaged in investment advisory services, regardless of whether it was engaged in similar investment advisory services.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below found that the defendant could have acknowledged the fact that the defendant provided an investment consulting or advisory service between the inquirer and the counselor.

Accordingly, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.