The statute of limitations is in progress from the time of the completion of criminal acts (Article 252(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act); Article 33 subparag. 5 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act prohibits brokers, etc. from mediating the sale and purchase or exchange of certificates, etc. related to the sale or lease of real estate, etc., the transfer or brokerage of which is prohibited by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; and the act of violation thereof shall be subject to punishment pursuant to Article 48 subparag. 3 of the same Act; and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that "mediation" refers to mediating the sale, exchange, lease, and other acts of acquisition or loss of rights between the parties to a transaction regarding the object of brokerage as provided in Article 3. Thus, if a broker, etc. violates Article 48 subparag. 3 of the same Act by mediating the sale or exchange of the certificates, etc., the statute of limitations shall be deemed to run from the time when the broker, etc.,

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the prosecution of this case against the Defendants was filed on April 23, 2010 with the three-year statute of limitations from March 2007 when the mediation of the Defendants was completed, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the statute of limitations for a violation of Article 48 subparagraph 3 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)