Therefore, Defendant A had Defendant A render brokerage services using his name or trade name, and Defendant B was engaged in brokerage services using Defendant A’s name or trade name and constitutes a violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, but the lower court acquitted the Defendants. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) Defendant A, a licensed real estate agent J of this case, notified the buyer of the terms of the contract, explained the terms of the contract, and adjusted the value thereof; (ii) Defendant B directly explained the subject matter to J; and (iii) the seller’s office prepared most of the contract at the time of the seller’s establishment of the contract; and (iv) the buyer’s office at the buyer’s real estate agent’s office only affixed the Defendant A’s seal to the broker’s column of the contract, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant A had the real estate broker using his name or trade name, and that Defendant B had the real estate broker using his name or trade name, and that Defendant B had the real estate broker using his name or trade name, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge this.

B. We further examine the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal.

(b) Other persons;