The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) was divided into KRW 40,000,000,000 received from the seller D, by half the amount of money that the Defendant received as a real estate intermediary fee, and thus, the amount that the Defendant received as a real estate intermediary fee constitutes KRW 20 million.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant was paid KRW 40 million as real estate brokerage commission.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (the penalty amounting to KRW 10,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 40 million from the seller as brokerage commission as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

(1) The Defendant filed a complaint against G on the grounds that the Defendant and G filed a total of KRW 80 million, including KRW 15 million, around March 27, 2012 from the seller, KRW 25 million, and KRW 40 million, around April 17, 2012 from the buyer, and KRW 80 million, including KRW 40 million, around April 17, 2012 from the buyer, as a real estate brokerage commission, with respect to G as a violation of public law. The Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office rendered a disposition against G on July 27, 2017 without suspicion (Evidence) against G.

(2) In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant and G jointly acted as a broker according to the reasoning of the non-prosecution of the charges described in paragraph (1) (insufficient evidence). However, the written reasoning of the non-prosecution merely stated that “G is deemed to have been aware of the conclusion of the real estate sales contract on the grounds of the purchase of E, which is the intention of M upon the recommendation of G.”

In addition, the recording of M submitted by one defendant is that the defendant and G jointly act as a intermediary, but this is the seller D and G act as the buyer E.