beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. No certified broker who is aware of the fact that he/she runs the brokerage business without registering the establishment of his/her authorized brokerage office, shall receive a request for brokerage or allow his/her operator to use his/her name;
On June 1, 2014, the Defendant, at the office of the said “D Licensed Real Estate Agent”, took part in the fact that himself/herself is not a broker or a brokerage assistant at the office of the said “D Licensed Real Estate Agent” and continued to proceed with the brokerage of the sale and purchase contract of the F Land in Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant land”), and received a commission from the buyer G.
2. Determination
A. As to the facts charged, the prosecutor asserts that “the act of receiving a request for brokerage or allowing a person to use his/her name, knowing that the person who runs the brokerage business without the registration of establishment of the brokerage office under Article 9,” as prescribed by Article 33 subparag. 2 of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”).
B. According to the records, the following facts are revealed: (a) from March 21, 2013 to Kimhae-si, the real estate brokerage office was operated in the name of “J Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” and closed on May 28, 2014; (b) E was registered as a brokerage assistant in the H’s brokerage office until May 28, 2014; (c) G visited the Defendant’s office in early May 2014, and expressed his/her intent to purchase the land located in the Jeju Island Line; (d) K used by the owner of the instant land, on May 1, 2014, requested E to mediate the instant land (the police, at the request of the brokerage of the instant land from the police, on June 1, 2014; (b) however, in light of the circumstances surrounding the sales contract until other related persons’ statements and conclusion of the sales contract, the statement appears to have been made due to the mistake of E.