Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the facts charged is Defendant A is the brokerage assistant of the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in the wartime, Dong-dong Office D and 103, and Defendant B is the representative of the above brokerage office.

1. No person who is not a practicing licensed real estate agent shall place any indication or advertisement on an object of brokerage;

Nevertheless, from November 19, 2015 to December 1, 2015, the Defendant entered the Defendant’s cell phone (G) in F eight times in total, and inserted an advertisement on the transaction of objects of brokerage, such as “large-scale commercial buildings/ shopping districts,” etc.

Accordingly, even though the defendant is not a practicing licensed real estate agent, the defendant displayed the advertisement of the object of brokerage.

2. Defendant B, a brokerage assistant of the Defendant, committed an act identical to that described in paragraph (1) in relation to the Defendant’s business.

The reason for innocence was that the prosecutor prosecuted Defendant A’s act by applying Article 49(1)6-2 and Article 18(2) of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

This is an offense in which a person who is not a practicing licensed real estate agent conducts brokerage business and labels or advertisements of the object of brokerage.

According to the records, Defendant B is a practicing licensed real estate agent running the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, and Defendant A, a brokerage assistant to which he acts as broker, requested Defendant B to post an advertisement on the object of brokerage as described in the facts charged, and F, as described in the facts charged, posted an advertisement on the object of brokerage as described in the section of the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office’s trade name, Defendant B’s office, or mobile phone number.

In light of the above facts, Defendant A’s advertising act may be viewed as advertising of the object of brokerage, rather than a practicing licensed real estate agent, to conduct brokerage business by Defendant A.

However, this Court has duly adopted and investigated.