The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received a letter from A to introduce the FX EM transactions and received such information to the surrounding people.

It is only authorized, and KRW 1.7 million received from D is not rebates, but it is paid after D borrowed money.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can conduct an investment brokerage business in collusion with D without obtaining authorization from the Financial Services Commission as stated in the judgment, and fully recognize the fact that the defendant operated an foreign exchange brokerage business without obtaining approval from the Minister of Finance and Economy. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) The term "business affairs" means business affairs continuously and repeatedly performed by a person according to his/her social status.

The Defendant asserts that FX M&C is not only the authority to engage in investment trading to surrounding people. However, when the Defendant recruited D to attract investors (two years), the number of investors (two-one person), and the investment scale ($248,129) of investors ($248,129), the Defendant was acting as an investment broker or foreign exchange broker.

The decision is judged.

As long as the defendant has conducted investment brokerage or foreign exchange brokerage, it does not interfere with the recognition of the facts charged in this case because D's official subordinate parts are not IB.

(2) On April 12, 2013, AA was convicted of an investment brokerage business or foreign exchange brokerage business in collusion with D on April 12, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 5, 2013.

AA does not seem to be distinguished from the investor who was recruited in the same office as the defendant at the time.

“The statement was made.”

(3) The defendant has old 1.7 million won, which he has received from D.