The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant H is reversed.

Defendant

H A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D1) The Defendant did not participate in the instant officetel transaction No. 4 (12) to 16 (16) of the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant was paid 4 (20) to 24 (20) of the crime sight table No. 4 to 24 (4) of the above crime committed.

The sum of KRW 30 million stated in the statement was received from QN in lieu of the money to be paid as a repayment of loans. Ultimately, the sum of the commission that the Defendant received for each officetel transaction as stated in the list of crimes is not more than KRW 36 million. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The defendant's act of misunderstanding the legal principles is merely a promotional act to attract customers by member of MGM, and does not constitute "mediation" under the Act on Certified Broker.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) Article 33 Subparag. 3 of the Authorized Brokerage Act does not apply to cases where fees are voluntarily paid.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B) The lower court determined as to whether the amount exceeds statutory fees on the basis of the actual transaction price, not the sales price stipulated in the contract for sales of an officetel 5 in each of the five units of crime as stated in the judgment below, but should determine whether the amount exceeds statutory fees on the basis of the sales price stipulated in the contract that is not the actual transaction price.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The Defendant, misunderstanding the legal doctrine, was amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 173 on January 6, 2015 under Article 20(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Authorized Judicial Brokerage Act.