The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on different premise despite the defendant's request for brokerage and sub-lease of this case for E, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the facts charged of this case.

2. Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act prohibit a broker, etc. from engaging in direct transactions with a client. In order to apply this provision to a broker, the broker should first be premised on the receipt of a request for brokerage from the client. The purpose of prohibiting such direct transactions is to protect the client by using information, etc. which the broker, etc. came to know in the transaction, so that it does not harm the client’s interest by using the information, etc. which the broker, etc. came to know in the transaction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do1872 delivered on November 9, 1990, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4494 delivered on October 14, 2005, etc.). In this case, whether the defendant was requested to mediate from E or not, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the fact that E reported the mobile phone numbers on the advertisement of banner or daily advertising site (55,70 pages of trial record), and ② even if an individual wants to engage in direct transaction, other than a broker, not a broker, etc., he appears to be able to pay the above advertisement, and ③ although I stated that he paid the brokerage fee related to the instant sub-lease from E, he did not directly pay the brokerage fee to the defendant with respect to the sub-lease of the commercial building of this case, the court below made a statement that he had paid it to the defendant up to the day.