Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. Defendant B is a certified broker who registers the name of “E real estate brokerage office” in Jeju-si on February 3, 2004 and operates it. Defendant A is a certified broker who is registered in the same real estate.

A. On January 17, 2014, Defendant B: (a) provided brokerage services using the name of the Defendant to a broker assistant A, who, around 14:00 on January 17, 2014, would engage in the brokerage of G room room around 14:00, in order to place an advertisement via a cross-section and to act as a broker for the F who contacted with customers.

B. On January 17, 2014, Defendant A had no access to studio with F in the studio at the studio address at which the buyer F was sent and the buyer F was requested to sell at the studio address at the Jeju District Court, which is located in the Jeju District Court, on January 17, 2014, and around 14:00, there is a benefit in preparing for investment.

"Along with the explanation of "A", etc., he/she has rendered brokerage services using the name above B in the name of a certified intermediary.

2. Determination

A. First of all, the following facts can be acknowledged in light of the evidence, such as the witness F’s legal statement, the police interrogation protocol against the Defendants, the interrogation of the suspect, the advertisement advertisement, the advertisement confirmation document, and the text message.

(1) Defendant B is a certified broker operating a real estate brokerage office E, and Defendant A is a registered brokerage assistant.

(2) Defendant B published a material advertisement with the content that “studio 18 rooms nearby the main university, the return-making good, and 50 million won,” which read “the studio 18 rooms nearby the main university, the return-making good, and the 5.5 million won,” on the offline newspaper and the Internet, etc., and Defendant B sent the Defendant B a letter of text asking whether it can be sold or not.

(3) At around 14:00 on January 17, 2014, Defendant B instructed Defendant A to provide on-site guidance of F to purchase the studio of the instant case. Accordingly, Defendant A, by burning F on a motor vehicle, installed the rooftop and internal room at the studio of the instant studio, and then installed the F at the studio of the instant case.