The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant merely received 1.5 million won at the expense of the tenant G after the preparation of a real estate lease agreement between the landlord E and the tenant, on behalf of the tenant, and then did not receive brokerage commission) and unfair sentencing. 2. The decision of this court

A. With regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, brokerage business refers to the brokerage business (Article 2(1) of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act) between the parties to a transaction concerning the object of brokerage, such as sale, exchange, lease, and other acquisition, loss or alteration of rights (Article 2(1) of the Act on the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions). Whether an act constitutes brokerage business shall be determined based on whether the broker's

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5271 Decided November 12, 2004, etc.). The Defendant’s 1.5 million won received from the lessee G following the conclusion of the lease contract of this case is excessively high for the Defendant’s mere consideration for the preparation of the contract, as alleged by the Defendant (Article 20(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions (Article 20(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions). The transaction amount of the lease contract of this case is KRW 2.60 million ( KRW 3,300,000 x 1,000) and thus, the commission fee is KRW 0.57%. Meanwhile, according to Article 20(4) of the above Rule, the commission fee is determined by mutual consultation between the client and the broker within 0.9% of the transaction amount, and the Defendant has already requested the payment of the commission between the lessor and the lessee E.145% evidence.