The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles) the Defendant sold Nos. 206 and 208 of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) sold by the Defendant himself to F’s wife G, the client, as a certified broker, and violated the public brokerage law.

Nevertheless, the lower court does not constitute “F or G” as a broker.

There is an error of law that misleads the Defendant of the facts and acquitted the Defendant in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. The purport of Article 33 subparag. 6 of the Act, which prohibits a certified brokerage broker, etc. from directly engaging in transactions with a client, is to protect a client by preventing the client from doing so (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da259677, Feb. 3, 2017). In order to apply the above provision to a certified brokerage broker, etc., it should be premised on the fact that the certified brokerage broker, etc. first received a request from the client for the brokerage (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4494, Oct. 14, 2005). Determination on March 3, 200, “The court below solicited the Defendant to purchase the commercial building No. 206 and the commercial building No. 208, Feb. 3, 2017, and the Defendant directly purchased the right to sell the commercial building (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do494, Oct. 14, 2005).

The evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that F or G constitutes “a broker” who requested brokerage in connection with the instant transaction by the Defendant. Ultimately, the Defendant made a self-transaction with “a broker” as stated in the facts charged.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

“The Defendant was found not guilty,” and sentenced not guilty.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is the above legal principles.