Defendant

B All appeals filed against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The court below found Defendant B not guilty of the violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (convenion part with Defendant A), among the facts charged against Defendant B, on the ground of the judgment, as described in Article 3-5 of the judgment of the court below, and found Defendant B guilty of the remaining violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (the part concerning the sole crime of Defendant B), the court below did not render a separate judgment.

The defendant B appealed on the guilty portion on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor did not separately appeal on the acquittal portion of the reasons. The acquittal portion of the reasons based on the principle of indivisible appeal is also judged in the trial. However, the acquittal portion of the reasons has already been relieved from the object of attack and defense between the parties and has been virtually relieved from the object of trial.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remainder except the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court below on the acquittal part of the reasoning of the court below is not separately determined by the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment imposed by Defendant B (a fine of three million won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (Defendant A), the fact that Defendant A conspired with Co-Defendant B as stated in the facts charged in the instant case and received money exceeding the statutory fee from Co-Defendant C as a brokerage commission can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant A

A. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted, the lower court recognized the facts charged against Defendant A only by the evidence presented by the prosecutor.