Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the facts charged on the ground that there was no request for brokerage is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a certified broker who operates real estate brokerage business in the name of the name of "G official broker office" from the F and the first floor of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

No real estate broker shall conduct a direct transaction with the client or represent both parties to the transaction.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received a request from H to sell the instant commercial building owned by H at the above public brokerage office around September 2013, and then entered into a sales contract with H around June 16, 2015, for the first floor of 103, 103-1, 300 million won of the K building in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, and from the seller H around June 16, 2015, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for the commercial building in KRW 103, 103-1, 300 million of the purchase price, and the down payment.

The Agreement was concluded to the effect that "..."

Accordingly, the defendant was involved in direct transaction with the client.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment: (a) based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, proves that the facts charged of the instant case, which the Defendant directly traded with the client even after receiving the request from I for the brokerage of the sale of the instant commercial building, was proven without reasonable doubt.

In short, the facts charged were acquitted on the ground that there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

1) At the court of the court below, I changed to the sale and purchase of the commercial building of this case, as it first made a phone call from the defendant to make a full deposit on deposit with the defendant.