Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

No certified broker shall allow another person to provide brokerage services using his/her name, or transfer or lend his/her certified broker's license to another person.

On July 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around July 12, 2013, with respect to the contract for the sale of officetels between E and F arranged by D in the office of Gwangju Seo-gu, Gwangju-gu, the Defendant: (b) sealed the Defendant’s official name stamp on the sales contract at D’s request; and (c) made D use of the Defendant’s name to engage in brokerage business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect of the defendant or D by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Reasons for conviction against the defendant in a written contract for sales of officetels, a business registration certificate, or a criminal investigation report (attached to the relevant indictment);

1. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case as to whether D performed an act of brokerage provided in the certified brokerage law, namely, (i) G decided to sell and purchase the officetel at a discount of the amount for the sales of Htel, the actual representative E, and (ii) D introduced the above officetel to F to enter into a sales contract for officetel between E and F; (iii) D acquired fees in the middle; and (iv) D merely purchased sales agency or agency for sale; but in light of the fact that it appears that D did not have been aware of the basic matters that should have been recognized as an agent or intermediary for sale, such as the current status or double transfer of the entire sales agents; and (iv) whether the sales agency or intermediary for sale was entrusted or not, it is assumed that D's act of introducing the instant officetel at issue constitutes a brokerage provided in the certified brokerage law, not a sales agency for sale, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Mo28, Feb. 22, 2018).