주택법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below convicted the violation of the Housing Act among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act.
However, since the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive by dividing the conviction portion among the judgment below because only the prosecutor appealeds the acquittal portion among the judgment below and did not appeal all the prosecutor and the defendant, the judgment of this court is limited to the violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act that the court below acquitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402, Nov. 21, 1992; 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010). 2. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case in violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act among the facts charged of this case, it is reasonable to view that K and I independently operated brokerage business without registering the establishment of a brokerage office in light of K and I’s legal statement, etc.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
3. Determination
A. Article 48 Subparag. 1 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provides for a penal provision for cases where a broker is engaged in brokerage business without registering the establishment of a brokerage office in violation of Article 9 of the same Act, and separately provides for a penal provision for cases where a broker is engaged in brokerage business using another person’s name or trade name in violation of Article 49(1)7 of the same Act in violation of Article 19(2) of the same Act, thereby lowering the statutory penalty.
In light of the legislative intent, statutory penalty, etc. of the above provisions, where a licensed real estate agent who has registered the establishment of a brokerage office performs brokerage services using the name and trade name of the licensed real estate agent, Article 49 (1) 7 and Article 19 (2) of the same Act is only applicable, and Article 48 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 of the same Act cannot be applied.
B. The defendant asserts that he independently runs the brokerage business.