The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant is the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (hereinafter “C Real Estate”).

(2) Since the Defendant and D worked daily at the office, and the seal also confirmed all intermediary activities while keeping in custody, they did not allow D to render brokerage services using the Defendant’s name or lend a licensed real estate agent’s license to D. (2) The agreement on the same business between the Defendant and D was maintained only from October 28, 2013 to December 2013, 2013, and the Defendant’s seal was affixed and sealed directly on the contract after the Defendant told D and other employees to resign.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of mistake

) “Lending of a licensed real estate agent qualification” prohibited under Article 7 of the same Act refers to lending of a qualification certificate itself with the knowledge that another person is performing the business of a licensed real estate agent by using his/her qualification certificate. Whether an unqualified person is performing the business of a licensed real estate agent ought to be determined not by appearance but by whether an unqualified person actually performs his/her business by using the name of the licensed real estate agent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5506, May 12, 2016). In addition, “mediation” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Licensed Real Estate Agent Act refers to arranging the transaction, exchange, lease, and other acts concerning the acquisition, loss, and transfer of rights between the parties to a transaction regarding the object of brokerage under Article 3 of the same Act.

Any act as intermediary.