The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Defendant

A is a person who operates an office with the trade name of "E Real Estate Consulting" in Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City C building and D, and Defendant B is a person employed by Defendant A.

No person, other than an authorized broker, shall use the name of an authorized broker or any similar name.

Nevertheless, on December 27, 2017, the Defendants, without qualification as a certified broker, used the name similar to that of the certified broker by putting up a standing signboard and a fixed signboard called “E certified broker office” at the above office and using the name named “E certified broker office E real estate consulting Pressing A” and “E certified broker office Pressing B” without qualification.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A written charge filed by the head of Gyeyang-gu Goyang-gu Office;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes stating similar names;

1. Defendants of the relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment for criminal facts: Each of the Defendants shall be punished by a fine under Article 49(1)2 and Article 8 of the Certified Judicial Brokerage Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include the motive and background of the instant crime, the background leading up to the detection, the period of using similar names, and the Defendants’ criminal records (in the first offense), and the Defendants’ age, sex, criminal conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, and the sentence as set forth in the Disposition above is determined.