A. In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant convicted the Defendant of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, even though he did not act as a broker of the above real estate from around December 2008 to around December 2010, upon receiving a request from F to sell 60,694 square meters of G forest land owned by D and received KRW 25,500,000 from D. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of mistake of facts. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions provides that "a brokerage business" means a business of acting as a broker at another person's request for a certain remuneration and providing brokerage services. Here, "business of acting as a broker" refers to a continuous business. As such, the issue of whether a broker is actually engaged in brokerage shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as continuity of brokerage, business nature, etc., and the purpose, size, frequency, period, mode, etc. of such act. However, if a broker was engaged in brokerage with repeated remuneration and repeated intent as well as repeated brokerage, it constitutes only one act. This does not change even if one of the trading parties received brokerage commission only (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do1080, Apr. 27, 2004; 13, 2006; 205Do6815, Jan. 1, 2006).