1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below and the first instance court maintained by the court below in light of the evidence duly admitted, the court below is just in holding that the Defendant, along with Nonindicted Party 1, arranged a sales contract of 54,88m2 prior to the closure of the Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun, Gyeonggi Pyeong-gun, and divided the amount of KRW 6 million, which Nonindicted Party 1 received from Nonindicted Party 2 as remuneration, into three million won. In so doing, the court below did not err by violating the logical and empirical rules and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Furthermore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

When a criminal trial becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, it shall not be repeatedly punished for the same offense, and where a public prosecution is instituted for the same case with a final and conclusive judgment, a acquittal shall be sentenced by judgment. The identity of the facts charged or the facts charged shall be based on the defendant's act and social facts, and its normative elements shall also be considered (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9678, Mar. 23, 2006; etc.). Where the facts charged in the final and conclusive judgment and the facts charged are different only once from those charged, if there are circumstances to deem that the two facts charged are compatible in light of the nature of the case, the basic facts shall not be deemed identical. However, when one of the facts is established, it shall not be deemed that the facts are closely related to the other's act and social facts to the extent that the latter's crime cannot be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do12885, Feb. 28, 2008.).

According to the records of this case, the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million on November 16, 2007 at the branch court of Suwon District Court and approximately 4987, "In collusion with the non-indicted 1 and 3 even though the defendant did not have a real estate agent qualification and did not establish a brokerage office, the defendant was placed under the charge of arranging a sales contract of KRW 35,000 for the forest land of KRW 35,00,000 on the Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, and as a result, received KRW 20,000 from the non-indicted 4 for the purpose of arranging a sales contract of KRW 35,00 for the forest land of KRW 35,00,000 for the defendant's money and KRW 2,000,000 from the non-indicted 4 for the purpose of violating the Licensed Real Estate Agent's Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, which became final and conclusive on December 15, 2007."

If according to the facts charged in the final summary order, as long as the defendant in collusion with Nonindicted 3 and 1 violated the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act and acquired 20 million won as brokerage commission, the above KRW 20,000 won shall be attributed to the defendant, etc. definitely, and thereafter, the use and consumption of the defendant's money and valuables by the defendant in collusion with Nonindicted 3 and 1 constitutes an act of ex post facto punishment because it is merely an act of consuming money and valuables owned by him, aside from the internal issues

However, this part of the facts charged assumes that even after the defendant received the above 20 million won, the above 20 million won is not attributed to the defendant, etc., and still remains as owned by the non-indicted 4, and the defendant was in the position of the victim and thus the defendant was in the position of the victim. This is based on the facts contrary to the facts charged in the summary order, contrary to the res judicata of the final summary order, in violation of the res judicata of the final summary order, and thus, it is not compatible with the facts charged in the summary order, and the money and valuables, which are the objects of the two acts, are the same as 20 million won issued by non-indicted 4. In light of the fact that the two are the same, although the form of the act or the legal interest of the damage are different, the identity of

Therefore, considering that the res judicata effect of the above summary order established by the court below in the same purport extends to this part of the facts charged, it is proper to render a decision of acquittal on the ground that this part of the facts charged constitutes a final judgment, and there is no violation of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as to res judicata of the final judgment

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)