Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

1. The Defendant in the facts charged is a practicing licensed real estate agent who has registered the establishment of a brokerage office under the trade name of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for Licensed Real Estate Agents; D is a person who has reported as a brokerage assistant of the above "C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office"; E is a person who engages in real estate brokerage in the above "C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office" without reporting a brokerage assistant

No practicing licensed real estate agent shall allow another person to render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name, or transfer or lend his/her brokerage office registration certificate to another person.

On March 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) was a practicing licensed real estate agent who completed the registration of establishment of a brokerage office; (b) had E engage in brokerage services using the “C real estate” trade name while mediating a real estate exchange contract between H and I from G Hall in the Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

Accordingly, the defendant allowed another person to render brokerage services using his trade name.

2. The following facts are recognized in full view of the records of the instant case, including the investigation report (examination of the suspect A's suspicion) and the investigation report (examination of the suspect A).

① From January 28, 2014, the Defendant registered the establishment of a brokerage office in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in the same place as the facts charged.

② On January 9, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of five million won for violating the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act for a violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018 Godan6811, and the appeal was dismissed on July 11, 2019, and the appeal was finalized on November 9, 2019.

③ The gist of the facts charged is as follows: “Defendant reported a majority of licensed real estate agents without qualifications, such as D, as a broker assistant, etc. after leasing the office from D at the above location; however, in fact, the broker assistant, etc. used the trade name of the broker office to render brokerage services and received 10% or 25% of the brokerage commission in return.”