Defendant

A Punishment for A.

A. The case holding that since the defendant's act of mediating sales contracts between P Co., Ltd. and officetels buyers does not constitute brokerage prescribed by the public brokerage law because it is merely an agency for sales in lots, etc., the defendant's act cannot be punished as a violation of the public brokerage law (hereinafter "the allegation No. 1"). 2) since the defendant's act is merely a vague position to be selected as a purchaser, or it does not constitute an object of brokerage under Article 3 of the public brokerage law because it constitutes a false brokerage, the defendant's act cannot be punished as a violation of the public brokerage law (hereinafter "the second assertion"). 3) The public brokerage law refers to a person who registered the establishment of a public brokerage office under Article 32 (1) (the public brokerage office under the public brokerage law); hereinafter "public brokerage office" refers to a person who violated Article 32 (1) of the Act, and Article 30 (3) of the Act provides that the defendant's act shall receive remuneration from the client with respect to brokerage business, and Article 30 (3) of the Act No. 30 (4) of the actual expenses are prohibited.

In light of this provision’s content and system, Article 49(1)10 of the Act is a provision which punishs a case where an authorized broker receives money or valuables in excess of the prescribed remuneration or actual cost to be received as effective brokerage based on the premise that a contract arranged by an authorized broker is valid.

However, Article 49(1)10 of the Act, which is a punishment provision premised on the case of acting as an intermediary for a valid contract, is null and void in the civil law on the grounds of fraud, etc. (hereinafter “third assertion”). (4) The defendant’s act in the public brokerage justice is not applicable to the defendant’s act.