The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The Defendant and E entered into a “on-site visit contract” with the content that they will act on behalf of the Vietnam Family Head and receive only expenses from E, and introduced Vietnam women under the condition that they did not enter into an international marriage brokerage contract. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have the obligation to provide personal information under Article 10-2 of the Marriage Brokerage Business Act (hereinafter “Marriage Brokerage Act”).

Therefore, the defendant breached his duty to provide personal information as stated in this part of the facts charged.

There is a fact that the Defendant introduced a large number of Vietnam women to E (hereinafter “instant assertion”).

However, since the Defendant introduced two or more other parties at the same time, not only once to E, but also to one person at a different time, this does not constitute “B assertion” (hereinafter “the same time”). (b) The punishment that the lower court sentenced to the sentencing unfair (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

① On December 2016, E visited the office of “H” and received education from the representative G, etc. on the draft and preparation documents at the time of international marriage, and subsequently introduced the Defendant, the representative of the International Marriage Brokerage Company “C” from G.

② On January 2, 2017, the Defendant consulted E and tried to proceed with E and Vietnam women, subject to each payment of KRW 2,00,000 as down payment, and KRW 14,60,000,00 in gender marriage.