The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The defendant above.

A. Since the Defendant’s money alleged to be true is a consulting fee, not a brokerage fee, the Defendant’s payment is not a violation of a public brokerage law even if the Defendant received money exceeding the statutory brokerage fee.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous by mistake.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment at the Seoul Western District Court on November 12, 2015, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on January 5, 2017. The Defendant’s crime and the above embezzlement, for which the lower court’s judgment against the Defendant became final and conclusive on January 5, 2017, are in a concurrent relationship with a group of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a punishment for the crime of the lower court’s judgment in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the lower judgment became impossible to maintain.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, regardless of the grounds for reversal ex officio.

B. Article 33 of the Act provides that "No certified broker, etc. for the opening of a business shall commit any of the following acts." Article 33 of the Act provides that "the act of receiving money or goods in excess of the remuneration or actual expenses under Article 32 under any circumstances such as case, donation, etc." and Article 32 (4) of the Act provides that "a house (including annexed land) shall be included."

Matters necessary for the remuneration for brokerage (hereinafter the same shall apply in this paragraph) and the limit of actual expenses under paragraph (2) shall be prescribed by municipal ordinance of the Special Metropolitan City, a Metropolitan City, a Do or a Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter referred to as "City/Do") within the extent prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and such matters shall be concerning brokerage of objects other than housing.