All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. It is recognized that Defendant B provided real estate brokerage services using the name and name of Defendant A in light of the following: (a) the statement of Defendant I is consistent; (b) I and Defendant B are consistent with the record of telephone conversations between Defendant B and I; and (c) Defendant B was holding a real estate seller’s identification card; and (d) received KRW 900,000 from I after concluding a real estate sales contract.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. As acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in detail, Defendant B was a person operating K Ka P and J Ka P, etc. and engaged in real estate consulting business on the Internet, and registered as a business entity for real estate consulting business items; Defendant B was not a certified brokerage agent, even where the name of Defendant B was operated by Defendant B, or an expression that Defendant B was operating a G certified brokerage office, but the victim stated that he did not have any fact of introducing himself as a certified brokerage agent (10 pages of the trial record). The conclusion of the court below acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.