Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant entirely entrusts H with the brokerage business of the instant sub-lease contract, and the defendant is only formally in currency with K, and the defendant, using his name or trade name, had H render brokerage services.
Although it can be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the fact that the court below judged that there was no proof of crime in the facts charged of this case and found innocence.
2. The phrase “allowing another person to render brokerage services using his/her name” prohibited under Article 49(1)7 of the Act on Certified Judicial Brokerage means that, in appearance, a disqualified person actually conducts the business of a broker even if the broker takes the same type as that in which he/she directly performs the business.
In this regard, the following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, which can be recognized by the evidence and the evidence, i.e., the investigative agency and the court below stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that "K made telephone conversations with the defendant of this case, and the defendant would be the representative of the office of the certified broker and the defendant would make a pre-loan contract as stated in the letter of order of H, and she was aware that she was the defendant as the broker of the sub-lease contract of this case, ii) the defendant, not H, was paid the brokerage fee of the sub-lease contract of this case, iii)
there are no circumstances to consider, and there is no expert knowledge about real estate brokerage.
Therefore, it seems difficult to see that it was difficult to directly act as a broker for sub-lease contracts rather than ordinary sales contracts, and (4) K filed a complaint with the original Defendant, and argued to the effect that K was acting as a broker without properly verifying the important matters relating to the transaction of the object of brokerage in the brokerage business, and H caused the Defendant.