A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a certified broker who operates the “D Authorized Broker Office” in Daegu Metropolitan City Northern-gu C.

No certified intermediary shall receive money or goods from the client in excess of the remuneration or actual expenses for the brokerage of the object of brokerage determined by the certified intermediary judicial system under any pretext, such as case, donation, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on January 15, 2015, arranged a contract to sell the E-House 108, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, received money from the buyer.

In addition, from January 15, 2015 to June 16, 2017, the Defendant received money and valuables in excess of KRW 103,830,00,00 as an intermediary fee for 70 times, as shown in the list of crimes committed in the attached Table, and received money and valuables in excess of KRW 47,068,920, respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Notification of suspicions of violation of authorized judicial brokerage, notification of suspected receipt of excess of statutory brokerage commission of an authorized brokerage office at the Daegu tax office at issue of North Korea, receipt details of brokerage commission, real estate transaction contract, real estate brokerage fee table for the Daegu Metropolitan City, real estate brokerage fee table, and application of statutes governing real estate brokerage commission for the Daegu Metropolitan City;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Article 49 (1) 10 and Article 33 (1) 3 of the Judicial Act, and the selection of imprisonment and/or imprisonment for an optional brokerage of criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The degree of criticism is high in light of the fact that the Defendant’s reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is a transactional practice, and the Defendant has received brokerage commission for a considerable period of time exceeding the statutory commission, and that the brokerage commission received in excess of the statutory commission is considerable amount.

However, the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and reflects them in depth.