The Defendants did not pay the above fines.

Despite the fact that an authorized broker, etc. for the opening of the business does not receive money or goods in excess of the remuneration or actual expenses prescribed by the law with respect to brokerage business under any pretext such as case donation, the Defendants offered to receive additional money from the buyers to receive money other than the legal brokerage fee, after mediating the right to sell the E apartment newly constructed in Hysung D, stating that the location of the above apartment would be good and the resale of the right to sell the apartment.

1. On June 2015, the Defendants: (a) through G sales office located in the Hasung-si F, brokered for the sale and purchase of the sale rights referred to in the said 401; and (b) from the above H to the account of Defendant A of the Republic of Korea on June 8, 2015, H transferred KRW 12 million to the Korean bank account of Defendant A on June 25, 2015; and (c) on June 29, 2015, the sum of KRW 15 million paid on July 8, 2015, to the Korean bank account of Defendant A.

corporation has been remitted as the intermediary's expense.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to receive more than 4/1,00 of the transaction value, which is the legal brokerage commission, from the Defendants.

2. The Defendants, at the sales office of the above G on June 2015, through H, mediated the sale and purchase of sales rights under the above 203, and transferred from the said I to the account of the above bank on July 11, 2015, KRW 10 million from the said I to the account of the said bank as a broker.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to receive more than 4/1,00 of the transaction value, which is the legal brokerage commission, from the Defendants.

3. The Defendants, at the sales office of the above G on June 2015, through H, mediated the sale and purchase of sales rights under the said G G, and received 15 million won from the said J to the account of the said K on July 31, 2015 through the said J, under the pretext of its brokerage.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to receive more than 4/1,00 of the transaction value, which is the legal brokerage commission, from the Defendants.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ each.