Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

No certified broker shall allow another person to render brokerage services using his/her name, or transfer or lend his/her certificate of qualification to another person.

On October 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received part of a brokerage commission from Asan-si “D Authorized Brokerage Office” located in Asan-si; and (b) had F act as a broker of a lease agreement between G and H by using the Defendant’s name, thereby allowing E to engage in brokerage services using the name of the Defendant of a certified private broker.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness F and J;

1. Statement made to H in the police statement protocol;

1. In the case of an investigation report (in the case of a person who prepares a written contract for a certified brokerage office, an investigation report (in the case of a certified broker office), an investigation report (in the case of a reference witness K telephone and text investigation), and an investigation report;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statute to the lease agreement (Presentation by the complainant) and the statement confirming the object of brokerage;

1. Article 49 (1) 1 and Article 7 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Criminal Crimes and Article 49 (1) 1 of the Act on the Protection of Private Participation in Judicial Brokerage, elective for Punishment;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendant guilty of the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is guilty of the costs of lawsuit, denies the charges by asserting that F, who works together with a DNA certified broker office, voluntarily enters the name of the Defendant in the lease contract between the absence of the Defendant and affix the seal thereto, and that F, was not allowed to engage in brokerage business using the name of the Defendant’s name.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by each evidence of the ruling, i.e., the F, as a brokerage assistant of the D Amateur office, did not receive instructions from the Doctrine Defendant or report to the Defendant in carrying out studio brokerage business.