공인중개사법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) ① The brokerage of this case was made through the joint brokerage network at Yangyang-si, ② The authorized broker can be interpreted as being requested by all transaction parties as stated in the contract and the confirmation note of the object of brokerage. The defendant and J signatures and seals both the defendant and J as an authorized broker, ③ In reality, G and J have no choice but to obtain information on the object of the lease of this case from the defendant. In full view of the above, the defendant committed the act of brokerage as to the object of the lease of this case jointly with J, and G also has a relation to the client against the defendant.
may be seen.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
2. The lower court, first of all, premised on the legal doctrine that “the client” under Article 33 subparag. 4 of the Certified Private Brokerage Act is limited to “the person who requested brokerage under an agreement” to the certified broker, and based on the circumstances in its reasoning, determined that G cannot be deemed the client with respect to the instant act of the lease brokerage, and acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, prosecutor's argument cannot be accepted.
A. A. Around October 24, 2015, G and K couple visited the instant apartment house 502 Dong 1002 to verify the leased object of this case, a certified mediator accompanied by G and K couple was only the J of G to become a lessee, and the Defendant did not share the same (64th page of the record of trial). B. The judgment below is affirmed.