All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since Defendant A, at the time of entering into a real estate sales contract written in the facts charged, has been practically involved in the conclusion of a sales contract by explaining the relevant real estate and transfer income tax to the victim and affixing a seal directly to the sales contract, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have allowed Defendant B to render brokerage services.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of three million won, Defendant B: a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, 1) The Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agent Act”)

Article 19(1) of the same Act provides that “A broker shall not allow any other person to render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name or transfer or lend his/her brokerage office registration certificate to any other person.” Article 49(1)7 of the same Act provides that “a person who has allowed any other person to render brokerage services using his/her name or trade name or has transferred or lent his/her brokerage office registration certificate to any other person in violation of Article 19.” Whether a disqualified real estate agent conducts the business of a licensed real estate agent shall be determined according to whether a unqualified person actually performs his/her business by using the name of the licensed real estate agent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do934, Mar. 29, 2007).” Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act provides that “a broker shall be defined as a “act of arranging the transaction exchange, lease or any other right between the parties to a transaction regarding the object of brokerage,” and the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below.

(1) Defendant A.