The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to Articles 25, 26, and 36 of the Certified Private Brokerage Act, the gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the confirmation and explanation of the object of brokerage; and (b) the completion of the final transaction contract, regardless of the extent of substantial involvement, shall be directly performed by a certified broker; and (c) in a case where a certified broker does not engage in such conduct and aids another person, such act constitutes “where a person allows another person to render brokerage services using his/her name” under Articles 49(1)1 and 7 of the Certified Private Brokerage Act.

In addition, Defendant B appears to have provided an additional explanation to the parties to the lease contract in the absence of Defendant A and C on the date of the contract, and it is reasonable to view that Defendant B actually performed the duties of the authorized intermediary during the final process of the above contract.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor charged Defendant B and D with the application of Article 49(1)1 of the Certified Judicial Brokerage Act. However, unlike subparagraph 7 of the same Act, the above subparagraph 1 does not punish “a person who acts as a broker in the name of a certified broker by using the certified broker’s name.” Thus, the application of the law seems to have omitted the description under Article 49(1)7 of the same Act.

Therefore, although each of the facts charged against the Defendants can be fully recognized, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants on each of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconceptions of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, i., ① the transfer and lending of a qualification certificate to another person by using his/her name in an authorized brokerage judicial system, and repeatedly punished by the same statutory penalty (Article 49(1)1 of the Authorized Judicial Brokerage Act).