Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to run a brokerage business shall register the establishment of a brokerage office with a registry office having jurisdiction over an area where he/she intends to establish a brokerage office under the conditions as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land,

Nevertheless, on October 24, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 65,00,000,000, down payment 65,500,000, and the remainder payment 10,000,000, from the former Viewing Public Service Center of the former Viewing City, 10,000,000,000, for the purchase price for the D site and housing in the former Yan-si, the former Yan-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, upon receipt of a request from C to mediate real estate trading.

Accordingly, the defendant did not register the establishment of a brokerage office and acted as a broker.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A complaint;

1. A copy of a real estate transaction contract;

1. Inquiries about the details of savings deposit transactions and liquidity transactions;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing investigation reports (related to attaching documents submitted by suspect A), copies of bankbooks attached thereto, and entire registered matters;

1. Relevant Article of the Acts concerning facts constituting an offense and subparagraph 1 of Article 48 and Article 9 of the Judicial Act concerning selective public brokerage of punishment;

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 his defense counsel did not demand money to C, and as C unilaterally purchased land at a price lower than the market price, the defendant paid honorariums to the defendant. Thus, the defendant did not engage in brokerage business prescribed by the public brokerage law.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, there is no room for reasonable deliberation to acknowledge that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment below, was acting as a broker without registering the establishment of a brokerage office. Thus, the Defendant and the defense counsel.