The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the defendant did not establish an office E in relation to the operation of the unregistered brokerage business, and the amount of 4 million won delivered by H is not paid as a commission, and there was no use of a name similar to a certified broker in relation to the use of a name similar to that of the certified broker. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the defendant, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle or in the misapprehension of the legal principle.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles: (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant and H were unaware of each other; (2) in order to rent the site of H, the Defendant visited the E office to obtain instructions from the employees of the said office to the telephone number of the president of the said office; (3) on March 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) entered into a lease agreement on G real estate owned by H and F at the said office at the early police station; (4) the Defendant entered into the said lease agreement; (b) the payment of intermediate payments after the down payment was paid pursuant to the said lease agreement; and (c) around May 15, 2013, the Defendant entered into the lease agreement with H and F at the said office to revise the fixed number of intermediate payments and add a special agreement to the remainder payments; and (v) the Defendant was also present at the time of entering into the lease agreement with the said office; and (v) the Defendant was also present at the said office with H and F’s affiliated with each of the said office.