Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a licensed real estate agent from December 8, 2005 to August 11, 2009, who operated the “D” in accordance with the Busan Shipping Daegu C 108.

Even if a real estate broker does not receive money or goods under any pretext exceeding the fees or actual expenses prescribed by the ordinance of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City or Do within the scope prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the real estate broker, at the above licensed real estate agent office on June 3, 2008, as well as at the seller’s office of Busan Metropolitan Government GG building 72,960,000 won between the seller and the buyer and the seller’s office on July 1, 2008, received money or goods exceeding the upper limit of the statutory fees (legal fees of KRW 6,506,640) by receiving the sales commission from E on July 1, 2008.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation, copy of a written complaint, and investigation report (attached to a deposit passbook);

1. Article 49 (1) 10 of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions, Article 33 subparagraph 3 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion regarding the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not go against the prohibition of receiving money and valuables, such as excess fees to licensed real estate agents, since the Defendant’s money received from E is not received as brokerage fees, but received as remuneration for sales agency.

However, even based on the records of this case and the data submitted by the Defendant, the Defendant appears to have arranged a sale contract for the right to sell G building Nos. 1401 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) between E and F, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant conducted a sale agency business that takes advantage of a certain degree of loss on the premise that he/she bears the burden of loss on each unit of the above G building sold in lots. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is difficult.