A. In light of the witness G and I’s statement in the court below, the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the lending of a certificate of qualification to G investigation agency among the facts charged of the instant case on the sole basis of the other evidence submitted by the prosecutor. However, in light of the fact that the Defendants reverse their police statements in the court below, there is no credibility, and G’s statements were reversed, and G’s statements were reversed. In light of the statements made by the complainants and G investigation agencies, the court below found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendants (1) through misunderstanding of facts, Defendant B received KRW 1.2 million from G and KRW 3 million, not as a brokerage commission, but as to Defendant B’s efforts, Defendant A paid the same money for personal personnel management, and Defendant A did not transfer the money received from G as a brokerage commission. Even if the above money was received as a brokerage commission, Defendant A instructed that it should not receive money independently from a usual member intermediary, Defendant A was in direct management of the business, and Defendant A had been in direct management of the business. Defendant B had been in progress before Defendant B acquired the real estate office for a long time. Defendant A did not know that the above money was received from Defendant B, and Defendant A did not know that there was no knowledge that the above act was invalid in relation to the instant real estate contract.