The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, a real estate broker, received a demand from G, the transferor of the reading room, to receive KRW 30 million as premium, even though he/she received a demand from G, the transferee of the instant case, to receive KRW 40 million, and acquired KRW 10 million, excluding KRW 30 million by obtaining KRW 40 million from the victim and delivering KRW 30 million to G, on July 30, 2012.

2. The court below stated that ① the victim is consistently with the investigative agency to the court below's decision, ② the defendant's employee K would like to have the principal amount of KRW 40 million,00,000,000,000,000,000 won for the premium of KRW 40,000,000, as a matter of course, by stating that the principal amount of the premium is to be paid to G; ② the employee K of the defendant stated that the principal amount of the premium is to be arbitrarily determined based on the money invested by the principal, so it cannot be objectively determined. According to the above statement, it appears that the victim had no choice but to believe that the defendant's horse was an individual, with regard to whether the amount of the premium is appropriate; ③ according to the response of the defendant sent to the victim on August 28, 2012, the defendant argued that the difference between the premium of KRW 10,000,00 is the intermediary fee and the principal amount to be paid to the defendant.