The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was written by N around 2006, that the Defendant entered the facts charged for election campaign at the time of the election of the president of the D Building owner, and it was merely a fact that F, the wife of N, stated the phone number changed to the Defendant, and returned it to F, and thus, the Defendant did not introduce the name of F as the representative of the authorized brokerage office, citing that the name of F, the name of F, who was the wife, was known to the Defendant.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, as it is sufficiently acknowledged that the Defendant used a name similar to a licensed real estate agent in the same manner as stated in the facts charged.

① The Defendant is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent, and the Defendant’s wife C provided real estate brokerage services in the name of “E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” at the office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building 110.

② Any person, other than a licensed real estate agent, shall not use the name of licensed real estate agent or any other similar name [Article 8 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (Amended by Act No. 11866, Jun. 4, 2013)] In such cases, whether such name is similar to a licensed real estate agent shall be determined on the basis of whether the general public is likely to mislead the person using such name as a licensed real estate agent prescribed in the same Act. It is sufficient that the name of "E Licensed Real Estate Agent Representative" used by the defendant be mistaken for the defendant as the person who has acquired

③ F was directly issued by the Defendant around 2012, and at the time, the Defendant was issued from the investigative agency to the lower court’s trial.