공인중개사법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant partially used the D office and paid 50% of the brokerage commission in return; (b) the Defendant received 50,000 won per month from D for the stable operation of the business due to lack of initial expenses; (c) the Defendant directly performed the brokerage business and received the brokerage commission; and (d) the Defendant did not allow D to render brokerage services using the Defendant’s name or lend a certified broker’s license.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is an authorized broker, and the certified broker shall not allow another person to render brokerage services using his/her name, nor transfer or lend his/her certificate of qualification to another person.
Nevertheless, around December 2010, the Defendant received a loan fee of a certified broker qualification from 50,000 won per month from Ma in Osan-si, Osan-si, and lent the Defendant's certified broker qualification certificate to D.
D with the qualification certificate of a certified broker lent by the Defendant, opened a mutually authorized broker office called F certified broker office, employed the Defendant as an employee, and run an authorized brokerage business by entering into a real estate brokerage contract from around December 2, 2010 to July 2014.
Accordingly, from December 2, 2010 to July 2014, the Defendant lent a certified broker qualification certificate to D, and had the Defendant render brokerage services using the Defendant’s name.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following evidence.
(c)
(1) In the relevant legal principles, the recognition of facts constituting an offense should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not more likely to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree of such conviction, the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable.