All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendants provided real estate consulting services to T Co., Ltd. separate from real estate brokerage, and received KRW 200 million from the service commission. Thus, the Defendants received brokerage commission in excess of the remuneration under the statutes.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The sentence that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (Defendant A: fine of KRW 5 million, and fine of KRW 3 million for the remaining Defendants) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s each sentence imposed on the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine. The record reveals that, in arranging the conclusion of a real estate exchange contract between T and V, the Defendants provided explanation of the profitability to the executives of T & T in the form of a written consent for the sale, and provided assistance in the rate of exchange value upon receiving the written consent for the sale, or in the procedure for cancelling various restrictive registrations established on real estate

However, such Defendants’ act is a typical act to arrange the exchange of real estate and constitutes a real estate brokerage act or an act incidental thereto, and otherwise, the Defendants provided real estate consulting services separate from the real estate brokerage act.

There is no evidence to see.

Therefore, the fact that the Defendants received KRW 200 million as real estate consulting services fees in addition to KRW 100 million prescribed as real estate brokerage fees in addition to the amount of KRW 100 million as real estate brokerage fees is actually paid KRW 300 million, which constitutes “the act of receiving money in excess of the amount of remuneration or actual expenses under Article 32 of the same Act under any other pretext” prohibited by Article 33 subparag. 3 of the Act.

The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants and prosecutors’ respective arguments of sentencing are unfair.