The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts only once, upon C’s request to introduce the buyer of the instant real estate, introduced the buyer of the instant real estate at the request of C, and does not continue to engage in business by repeating real estate brokerage.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant continued to conduct real estate brokerage as a business without the registration of establishment of real estate brokerage office. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter referred to as a fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act provides that "a brokerage business means a business of acting as a broker for a certain remuneration at another person's request." Here, the term "business of brokerage" refers to a continuous business of brokerage. As such, the term "business of brokerage" refers to a continuous business of brokerage. Thus, whether a broker is actually engaged in brokerage shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as continuity of brokerage, business nature, etc., the purpose, size, recovery, period, and attitudes of such act, and the purpose, size, etc. of such act. If a broker was acting as a broker with an intention to continue brokerage as well as continuous brokerage with repeated remuneration, even if

(2) According to the records, the Defendant introduced the buyer to C before the instant case, thereby allowing C to enter into a sales contract on the instant land and receiving KRW 70 million in return, and the Defendant received KRW 70 million in return.