The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (7 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, where there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant is against all of the instant criminal acts.

There is no criminal record exceeding the fine prior to the crime of this case.

It seems that the economic situation of the defendant is not good.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant received a total of KRW 10 million from E while arranging a contract for selling real estate owned by E two times, and there is a lot of profits.

In light of the purpose of the authorized brokerage law that intends to promote the sound real estate brokerage business through the enhancement of expertise in the authorized brokerage business and the protection of the parties to the transaction, the defendant's act of operating real estate brokerage business without being registered as a brokerage office is highly likely to be criticized.

Even before the crime of this case was committed, the Defendant did not know even though he had been subject to criminal punishment of a fine of one million won due to the same crime and committed the crime of this case.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable and is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.