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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

No person, other than an authorized broker, shall use the name of an authorized broker or any similar name.

On August 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) arranged a real estate sub-lease contract on the portion of the commercial building in the instant singing practice room concluded between the sub-contractor D and sub-contractor E within the scope of the “Csing practice hall” of Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon; (b) used the name “F real estate representative” similar to the official seal broker, stating that the sub-lease contract is “F real estate”, “A: the representative”, and “Permission number” in the column of the sub-lease contract; and (c) used the name “F real estate representative” as “G”.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the witness E’s partial legal statement statutes;

1. Article 49 (1) 2 and Article 8 (Selection of Penalty Provisions) of the relevant Act on Authorized Judicial Brokerage of Criminal Facts;

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

1. The reasons for not guilty portion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the charges of this case include the name of “F real estate representative A” as stated in the facts charged in the instant case and the name of “F real estate representative A” is examined as to the part that the Defendant used the name “F real estate representative A” and “F real estate representative A” similar to the F real estate agent by a certified broker and not a certified broker. In the statement in the complaint statement and the police statement statement, E stated that the name of “F real estate A” rather than the name of “F real estate representative A” at the time of the aforementioned brokerage, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was named as “F real estate representative A” at the time of the above brokerage, but the second interrogation protocol against the Defendant was denied by the Defendant, and that it was named “F real estate representative A” as “A”

was stated.

In light of the fact that the witness E’s legal statement consistent with the above facts charged, and the statement of E in the second interrogation protocol of the police officer against the defendant was inconsistent and credibility, and that H was not memoryed as to whether the defendant had committed the above accusation against E at the time of H.