The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable for Defendant A (six months of imprisonment) to be sentenced.

B. In full view of the fact that the prosecutor (1) misjudgment of facts (as to the acquittal portion), Defendant A made a statement to the effect that the prosecutor recognized that the amount of KRW 10 million received through Defendant B is the brokerage commission, as stated in the facts charged of occupational embezzlement of this case, and the expenses that Defendant A received from the complainant and disbursed for the practical application for permission on diversion of farmland constitutes the agency expenses for the application for permission on diversion of farmland, the above KRW 10 million that Defendant A received through Defendant B shall be deemed to have received as the brokerage commission solely.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (as to Defendant A) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. With respect to the violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act against the Defendants, the lower court determined that, in full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view that the complainant entrusted the business of applying for permission to divert the instant land in addition to the brokerage business, and delivered the total amount of KRW 40 million in consideration of the entire consideration. However, it is difficult to view that the above business of applying for permission to divert the said farmland is necessarily incidental to the brokerage of the sales contract for the instant land, and it is not included in the sales brokerage business, and the amount of remuneration for the sales contract brokerage and the business of applying for permission to divert the farmland is not clearly distinguishable from the amount of money issued by the complainant and the amount of remuneration for the business of applying for permission to divert the farmland is not clearly distinguishable. Accordingly, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendants

B. The court below duly adopted and investigated the judgment of the court below.