All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A did not provide the name cards stated in the facts charged to F, and even if provided, it cannot be deemed that a licensed real estate agent or any other similar name was used. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty. Defendant B did not have any name similar to a licensed real estate agent, nor did the Defendant use the name similar to that of a licensed real estate agent, and did not neglect due care and supervision, but did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The lower court’s respective punishment (a fine of three million won) imposed on the Defendants is unreasonable on the grounds that it was unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Although Defendant A denied this part of the facts charged while asserting the same purport in the court below’s trial, the court below found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the reasons stated in Articles 3 and 4 of the judgment below.

Article 28 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the registration of establishment of a brokerage office may be made only by a licensed real estate agent or juristic person. Thus, the name representing the representative of a brokerage office is likely to cause a general person to mistake the person using the name as a licensed real estate agent and thus, constitutes “title similar to that prohibited by a licensed real estate agent” prohibited by Article 28 of the former

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9334 Decided March 29, 2007) Examining the circumstances duly explained by the court below in detail and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant delivered F a name tag (Evidence No. 56 pages) stating "D real estate representative A" to F around August 20, 2017, and the brokerage office.