The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal that Defendant A did not perform brokerage services in entering into the instant lease agreement, and Defendant B did not allow Defendant A to render brokerage services using his/her name or lend his/her name to the broker.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of charges, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a licensed real estate agent who operates a real estate brokerage office in the name of “E” from the wife population D at the Young-si city, and the Defendant A served as a brokerage assistant at the above brokerage office.

Defendant

B around June 11, 2010, at the above Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, the above Licensed Real Estate Agent Office entered into a lease agreement on the F. 201 Dong 201, a broker under the name of the broker, and the defendant A, a broker assistant, used the broker's name to carry out the brokerage business. The defendant A used the broker's name and used the broker's name.

B. The lower court found the Defendants guilty on the facts charged based on the evidence of its judgment.

C. Determination on whether an unqualified person performed the business of a licensed real estate agent shall be determined based on whether an unqualified person actually performs the business by using the name of the licensed real estate agent without examining whether the licensed real estate agent was in the form of carrying out his/her business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4542, Nov. 15, 2012). Even if a part of the brokerage business was carried out by another person, if the broker was actually involved in the brokerage process, it cannot be deemed that the broker had another person carry out the brokerage business using his/her name or trade name.

The Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7425 Decided May 13, 2003 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7425, supra).