A. In fact, the misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the defendants leased the commercial building owned by the defendant A (hereinafter "the commercial building of this case") to K (the agent E) without a request for brokerage. However, the defendant B entered the lease contract between the defendant A and K (hereinafter "the contract of this case") as a formal intermediary and did not receive a brokerage commission.

Even if Defendant B received a request for brokerage from Defendant B, and Defendant A concluded a lease agreement on his own building through Defendant B’s brokerage.

Also, this does not constitute a “direct transaction” prohibited by Article 33 subparag. 6 of the former Act on the Business Affairs of Certified Private Broker and Report of Real Estate Transactions (wholly amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Act on the Judicial Brokerage”).

On the other hand, there is no evidence that Defendant B neglected to supervise Defendant A.

Therefore, although the defendants should be acquitted, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court acknowledged all the facts charged in the instant case in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendants in the lower judgment

subsection (b) of this section.

1) At the first time, Defendant A reported on the rent advertisement attached to the front glass of the instant commercial building and sought Defendant A. At the time, Defendant A called “A already leased the instant commercial building to another person.”

Since then, E is a defendant who has colored another commercial building in the vicinity.