beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.21 2017고정1414

공인중개사법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a mutual real estate brokerage office in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “E Real Estate”.

A broker, etc. shall not receive any money and valuables under any pretext in excess of the fees or actual expenses prescribed by the Ordinance on Housing Brokerage, etc.

Nevertheless, on April 21, 2017, the Defendant, in G located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, arranged a contract for the sale of KRW 98,282,500, with the selling area of KRW 103 39.72 m2, 169.72 m2, and exclusive area of KRW 130.69m2, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to the seller and the purchaser and one other, and received money exceeding the limit of KRW 9 million, which is a statutory fee, from the buyer and one other.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Agreement on the purchase and sale of an apartment, inquiry into details of transaction, and application of statutes governing the Stockholm content;

1. Article 49 (1) 10, and Article 33 subparagraph 3 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 49 (1) 10 of the same Act and Article 33 of the same Act concerning selective brokerage of criminal punishment

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is that there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant, and the money and valuables received in excess of the client is returned to the defendant. The crime of this case is not against the legislative intent of the public brokerage law in order to enhance the expertise of the affairs of the public brokerage and foster real estate brokerage in a sound manner, and the crime of this case is not punishable, and the defendant's attitude in the process of real estate sales contract and the degree of administrative disposition to be borne by the defendant due to criminal punishment are determined as the sentence of this case in consideration of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the public trial of this case.