The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not that of real estate brokerage, but only of business start-up consulting services, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. Under the relevant legal principles, the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”), “mediation” refers to the mediation of sale, exchange, lease, and other gain, loss, and transfer of rights between the parties to a transaction regarding the object of brokerage (Article 2 subparag. 1); “mediation business” refers to a business of acting as a broker at another person’s request with a fixed remuneration for remuneration.

(Article 2(3) and Article 48(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provide that a person who runs a brokerage business without the registration of establishment of a brokerage office shall be punished.

Meanwhile, in light of the purport of the former Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, which aims to protect a transaction party, whether a certain act constitutes a brokerage shall not be determined by the subjective intent of the broker, not by whether the broker had the intention to mediate the transaction for the transaction party, but by whether the broker’s act is objectively deemed to be an act for mediating the transaction in terms of social norms, from the objective perspective of the broker’s act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do1914, Jul. 23, 199; 2013Do1393, Jul. 10, 2014). In addition, deeming that real estate brokerage was conducted as incidental to real estate consulting activities, it does not constitute a brokerage business under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, on the ground that such act was conducted as incidental to real estate consulting activities.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7594 Decided January 11, 2007). B.

In the case of this case, the defendant argued the same as this part in the court below, and the court below did so.