The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, since the Defendant did not receive a request from F for real estate brokerage, and thus, the facts charged in the instant case cannot be acknowledged. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion based on the circumstances indicated in its holding, although the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal.

In addition to the following circumstances revealed in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, such judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

A. The Defendant introduced F, who was found in the real estate brokerage office (hereinafter “C real estate”) that he had operated, to F, other commercial buildings E (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) such as the above commercial buildings E (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, in addition to the above shopping buildings E (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”). It seems that the Defendant recommended the purchase of the instant commercial buildings by guiding the expected return rate, etc.

피고인은 당시 “ 위 C 부동산은 동네 사람들이 모여 퀼트를 하는 등의 용도로만 사용하였고, 영업은 하지 않았다”, “ 이 사건 상가 외에 위 상가 I 호 등은 소개한 적이 없다 ”라고 주장하나, 그 자체로 유지 및 관리비용이 지출되는 공인 중개사 사무실을 단지 퀼트를 하는 등의 비영업용으로만 사용하였다는 주장은 상식에 반하고, 위 상가 분양 안내서에는 E 호와 I 호 부분에 형광펜으로 칠한 흔적이 보이는 바, 이는 오히려 “ 피고인이 위 상가를 전반적으로 소개하였다” 라는 F의 원심 법정 진술에 부합한다.

B. The Defendant received from F the purchase price of the instant commercial building in addition to KRW 480,000,000,000, which was originally agreed upon by F.

this section.