logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.22 2016노3660
공인중개사법위반
Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A, and Defendant C as Defendant B’s brokerage assistant, and did not independently render brokerage services. However, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1 and the misunderstanding of the legal principles, even though the involvement of the Defendant A and the Defendant C in the sales contract for the housing of Gwangju T and the second floor constitutes an act of brokerage, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination as to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts, etc. is based on the following facts acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the lower court: ① Defendant C was discovered while performing brokerage services using the name of R and the trade name of “F authorized broker”; ② Defendant B acquired the same office at the Plaintiff’s request and registered as a certified broker office in the same trade name; ③ Defendant A and Defendant C was in charge of each sale and lease contract, transaction arrangement, field investigation, and contract preparation; ④ both Defendant A and Defendant C were in charge of each transactional parties, ④ P, Q, L, andO, and paid brokerage fees to Defendant A or Defendant C by recognizing that the certified broker was the operator of the above office; and there was no principal entry of Defendant B in the process of signing, concluding, and executing the contract. In full view of the facts, etc.

arrow