Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No authorized broker of the commencement of business shall allow any other person to render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name, nor lend his/her brokerage office registration certificate to any other person.

On February 6, 2016, the Defendant: (a) provided brokerage services using the name “A” and the trade name of “D real estate” operated by the Defendant in Full-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and (b) provided brokerage services using the name “A” and “D real estate” operated by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A petition for accusation or accusation;

1. Recording notes;

1. Each investigation report (including attachment, etc. of a copy of investigation documents on a separate case, verification, etc. of the date of closure of the D authorized broker office, the details of real estate brokerage in the name of the suspect, the currency of the public official of the office in Busan-gu, and the accuser currency);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a real estate lease contract, notice of terms and conditions, mutual aid certificate, and certificate for registration;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Article 49 (1) 7 and Article 19 (1) of the Judicial Act as an alternative judicial broker for the preparation of facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion did not allow the E to render brokerage services using their names or trade names, and is merely limited to doing brokerage services using their own names or trade names. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence established prior to the judgment, there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant had the E engage in brokerage services using his/her name or trade name. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is rejected.

(a) E in an investigative agency and in this court, “E himself shall be a limited company G which is a real estate consulting firm in the Full-si Seoul Metropolitan City of Jeonju.