The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As misunderstanding the legal principles, G voluntarily paid money exceeding the statutory fees to the Defendant, the Defendant’s receipt of money in excess of the statutory fees does not violate the public brokerage law.

B. Sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of one million won)

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the provisions of the public brokerage law that set the limit of the brokerage commission and prevent the commission from being paid in excess of the fixed limit under the contract of brokerage are so-called compulsory provisions that restrict the judicial effect on the part exceeding the fixed limit. Even where the broker, etc. received money under the pretext of money such as the case fee and the fee, etc. after mediating the transaction of real estate, it constitutes an act violating the above provision if the amount exceeds the fixed fee.

2) As claimed by the Defendant, the buyer voluntarily paid money exceeding the statutory fees.

In light of the above legal principles, if the defendant received money in excess of the statutory commission in connection with the brokerage of real estate sale and purchase, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant violated Article 33 subparagraph 3 of the Act, and then the sales contract that the defendant arranged was terminated

Even if the brokerage contract is an independent contract separate from the sales contract, the above circumstances do not affect the establishment of crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the judgment of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

2) The Defendant itself acknowledged the facts of the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the same criminal history, and agreed with the buyer.