The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant provided real estate consulting and received remuneration and expenses, not that the Defendant provided real estate brokerage services.

2. That the act of real estate brokerage was conducted as incidental to the act of real estate consulting;

of this case, it does not constitute a brokerage business under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply).

It is not reasonable to view that the Defendant is identical to the grounds for appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7594 Decided January 11, 2007). While the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal, the lower court, based on relevant evidence, can recognize the fact that the Defendant engaged in real estate brokerage business.

Accordingly, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely after comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit (it does not interfere with the defendant's act of constituting a crime of violation of the authorized judicial review even though some of the real estate consulting was included in the money paid by the defendant). 3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition. [Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, "No. 4" of the court below's decision No. 2, "No. 5 "Real estate brokerage business" is "real estate brokerage business," and Article 48 (1) 1 and Article 9 (1) of the Act applicable to criminal facts is amended from "No. 1, 200 to "No. 4. 1, 2013" to "No. 4, 2014," and Article 9 (14) of the former Public Brokerage Act.