The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the money received by the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the part exceeding the statutory brokerage remuneration was voluntarily paid by the purchaser, and does not constitute the elements for the crime of violation of the official judicial brokerage and did not have such intent on

In addition, in the case of perjury of this case, the defendant did not have the hearing power of left side, and thus, the defendant mistakenly understood and responded to the question of the plaintiff's agent in court at the time. Therefore, the defendant's testimony is not a statement contrary to memory and did not have the intention of committing perjury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, or thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

For this reason, the court below, based on its stated reasoning, fully recognizes the fact that the defendant received money or goods in excess of the statutory brokerage remuneration with respect to the crime of violation of the authorized brokerage judicial system, and found that the defendant was well aware of the real estate trading situation in relation to perjury, but the defendant made a false statement as stated in the facts constituting the crime.

It is reasonable to view it.

In light of the facts charged, all of the charges of this case were convicted.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in a thorough manner with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

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

(b) the defendant;