The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) an authorized brokerage judicial branch imposes criminal punishment on an agent assistant, etc. for direct transaction with the client (Article 48 subparag. 3 and Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Authorized Brokerage Act). The Defendant, upon request of H’s agent M, has arranged an exchange contract on the Defendant’s F-owned land and H’s land. This constitutes a direct transaction in light of the legislative intent of the above provision.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (the prosecutor explicitly withdraws the assertion of mistake on the first trial date). 2.

A. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, directly traded with the client as stated in the instant facts charged by the Defendant.

Defendant was acquitted on the ground that it cannot be readily determined.

B. Since the facts charged of this case is premised on the Defendant’s negligence in the name of the Defendant’s child F, the Defendant’s ownership of the land in this case, regardless of the name of the registration in question, cannot be determined on the premise that the Defendant had a direct transaction with the client, regardless of the name of the registration in question, under the premise that the ownership of the land in this case was actually traded with the client.

However, insofar as the ownership of the land in this case is against F, the actual party to the exchange contract in this case is bound to be regarded as F as the name of the contract. As such, construing that the direct transaction of a brokerage assistant subject to a penal punishment includes “a broker between his child and the client,” such interpretation as “a broker between his child and H,” is not permissible as it goes beyond the scope of the possible meaning of the penal provision, and it is an analogical interpretation or expanded interpretation beyond the scope of the language and text.

In addition, this case’s exchange contract.