The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) In misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not request the victim to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis when mediating the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) between G and the victim F on the Seo-gu Busan Hel (hereinafter “the instant cartel”). Therefore, the Defendant did not make a statement that the victim would be able to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis. Thus, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the matters concerning whether to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis differently from the fact and did not make such decision.

(2) In light of the legal principles, the Defendant notified the victim of the fact whether the Defendant established a right to lease on a deposit basis

Even if a right to lease on a deposit basis is established at the time of the transaction in this case, in excess of the value of the building in the future, such as the National Credit Union Federation of Korea, etc., the victim could not guarantee the return of the lease deposit even if the right to lease on a deposit basis was established at the apartment of this case, and the victim intended to establish the right to lease on a deposit basis at the apartment of this case was not for securing the return of the lease deposit but for receiving a loan for the remainder of the lease deposit to the lessor, so the lessor did not have any legal obligation to comply

Therefore, there is no legal obligation to notify the victim of such matters, because the matters concerning the establishment of chonsegwon at the time of the trading of the Mourel of this case are not important matters in the trading.

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

B. (1) The prosecutor (1) misjudgments the facts about the acquittal portion of the lower judgment and the Defendant’s misapprehension of the legal principles do not exceed the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act from the lessor G of