Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

The contract based on the contract dated April 25, 2007 and the written statement of performance as of April 26, 2007 is a separate contract subject to different rights (electronic is transfer of right of lease, transfer of ownership, transfer of ownership and sublease), and all of the above two contracts are rescinded by a special agreement or intent of the parties before the mediation of the defendant is completed and are returned to the defendant. As such, the defendant cannot be said to have mediated the sale of the real estate the change of rights of which is restricted as stated in the facts charged of this case or received brokerage fees in excess of the statutory fees. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, etc., which led to the

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal is examined ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes to the indictment as stated in the following facts, and the subject of the judgment upon permission by this court. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

B. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 1 as a broker of the defendant on April 25, 2007, and the non-indicted 2, the lessee of the early sale of the constructed rental housing (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-party 1") under the Rental Housing Act, stated in the contract that the non-indicted 1, a lessee of the apartment of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "multi-party 2"), can purchase the relevant rental housing first if the lessee satisfies certain requirements (see, e.g., Article 15 of the former Rental Housing Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8966, Mar. 21, 2008) and the non-indicted 2, the sale contract for the non-indicted 1, which was concluded between the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 2, and the non-indicted 2, the right to purchase and sell the apartment, which was concluded in the name of the non-indicted 1, the right to purchase and sell the apartment.

In addition, as above, since the sales contract of April 25, 2007 and the statement of performance as of April 26, 2007 was concluded through a series of acts such as the sale contract of the apartment of this case, the act of brokerage of the defendant was completed. Accordingly, as long as the defendant was paid the commission, the defendant shall promote real estate speculation by mediating the sale and purchase of the real estate the change of rights is limited under the related laws and regulations in the above manner, and the defendant shall be fully recognized to have received the commission for brokerage in excess of the maximum amount of statutory fees (amount calculated based on the purchase price of the right of sale) prescribed by the ordinances of Gyeonggi-do from non-indicted 2, as alleged by the defendant, and the circumstances such as the fact that the business as the broker remains or the fee was refunded due to the cancellation of the contract do not affect the violation of the Business Affairs of each such licensed real estate agent and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act already

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the above grounds for ex officio reversal exist, and it is again decided as follows.

Article 48 subparag. 3, Article 33 subparag. 7 (Selection of Fines), Article 49(1)10, Article 33 subparag. 3, and Article 32(3) (Selection of Fines) of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judges Kim Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)