Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Criminal facts

The Defendant is a licensed real estate agent who operates a real estate brokerage office under the trade name of "D" located in Ilyang-dong, Busan Metropolitan City C.

A broker, etc. shall not receive money or goods in excess of the fees or actual expenses prescribed by the Act under any pretext, such as case donation, and the brokerage commission for the objects other than a house shall be determined within the limit of 9/100 of the transaction amount.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the above brokerage office around March 19, 2013, agreed to receive KRW 200 million from the buyer on March 2013, to receive KRW 398 square meters from the seller E, F, G, H, and the buyer (ju) to receive KRW 398 square meters, the above JJ’s building with KRW 1008/2016 square meters and KRW 1001, 201, 202, 824.33 square meters, the above I246.03 square meters, the above KG house with KRW 320 square meters, the above L forest with KRW 11/175.33 square meters from the buyer’s side as brokerage commission, and then received KRW 200 million from the buyer’s side on April 20, 2013, and around April 15, 2013 x 900/400 (300 billion) of brokerage commission under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Investigation report (verification of suspect's qualification as licensed real estate agent);

1. Filing a complaint, real estate sales contract, details of deposit transactions, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on checks in one’s front;

1. Article 49(1)10 and Article 33 subparag. 3 of the Act on Business Affairs of, and Report on Real Estate Transactions by, the former Licensed Real Estate Agents who choose the applicable law and punishment regarding facts constituting an offense (wholly amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014); the selection of fines

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Although the amount received in excess of the brokerage commission under the law on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order exceeds the brokerage commission under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, all of the brokerage commission received in excess does not appear to have been used by the defendant, the complainant expressed his/her intent that he/she would take the front action against the defendant in civil procedure, and