Attorney C, D

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

Of the facts charged in this case, it is not guilty of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to market price manipulation.

A person who comes to hold stocks, etc. of a stock-listed corporation in bulk shall report the status of holding, purpose of holding, details of major contracts on the stocks, etc. held, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree to the Financial Services Commission and the Exchange within five days from the date of such change in accordance with the methods prescribed by Presidential Decree, and where the total number of stocks, etc. held is changed by at least 1/100 of the total number of the stocks, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at the same place around August 5, 2010, held 341,920 shares of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) and held more than 5% of the total number of the shares issued by the said company. Thus, the Defendant violated the obligation to report to the Financial Services Commission and the Exchange during the period from August 12, 2010 to December 23, 2010, and violated the obligation to report the shares held in bulk on five occasions in Seoul, as set out in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by witnesses G in the third protocol of trial;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. Results of the investigation and processing of unfair trading of F stocks;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

Considering the fact that Article 445 subparagraph 20 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and Article 147 (1) of the same Act (the FF equity investment has been solicited from Dong Dong E and the purchase of the above shares was commenced, E is a professional investor like the defendant, and the defendant held approximately 5% shares on July 26, 2010 and continuously held shares of approximately 5% on or around August 6, 2010, and even after the purchase of the above shares, the defendant continued to hold shares of approximately 5%, it is determined that he/she was aware that he/she would hold at least 5% shares of Dong Dong Dong E in a special relationship, or that he/she could be aware of them at least). Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Article 70 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014); Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Part of innocence (Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to market price manipulation)

1. Facts charged;

No one shall trade, entrust, or be entrusted with, listed securities or derivatives in the future with an intention to attract anyone to trade such listed securities or exchange-traded derivatives, creating a misleading appearance of active trading or causing a fluctuation in the market price of such securities or derivatives.

Nevertheless, on July 2010, the Defendant anticipated that the share price increase through investment in new projects and acquisition and merger after capital increase with respect to the KOSDAQ-listed corporations. From that time to October 2010, the Defendant: (a) up to 10,000 won; (b) up to 200,000 won (number K); (c) up to 1,49,385 shares (4.9% of the total number of outstanding shares); (d) up to 70,000 won (number 1; (e) up to 250,000 won (number 1; (e) up to 30,000 won (number 1; (e) up to 36,00 won (number K); and (e) up to 18,00 won (number 1; and (e) up to 36,000 won (number 1; and (e) up to 47,074,000 shares) up to 14,0784,2818.

(a) An expensive purchase order;

On November 2, 201, the Defendant: (a) filed an order to purchase 10 won or more than 1,020 won (1,030 won) 1,030 won or 1,030 won each 1,030 won or more; (b) filed an order to purchase 1,030 won or more from 04 to 05 won via a computer installed in the Defendant’s residence of Songpa-gu 02 802: 1,09:30 won or more; (c) 1,030 won to 1,00 won or more; (d) 3: 1,030 won or more; (e) 1,030 won or more; (e) 1,030 won or more; (e) 2:3: 1,060 won or more; (e) 1:3:3:00 won or more; (e) purchase of 3:3:3:300 won or more shares in the name of 106:3:3:305 shares or more.

(b) False purchase orders; and

On November 15, 2010, the Defendant raised 1,320 won (09:28:30) after establishing 1,25 won lower than the closing price (1,285 won) at the same place on the 10th day prior to the 10th day, but, at around 09:28:32: around 09:32, the sales price of 10 shares increased by 115,643 shares; on the other hand, the remaining 10 shares sold at 31,493 shares; on the 10th day after submitting an order for purchase to 30:30,000 won for the immediately preceding 1:30,000 won for the purpose of purchase and sale; on the 2nd day of 1:5th day after submitting an order for purchase and sale at 1:30,000 won for the immediately preceding 4:30,000 won for the purpose of purchase and sale; on the 2nd day (1:325:5) shares immediately preceding :305,01.

(c) Market price control point;

피고인은 2010. 12. 7.경 같은 장소에서 종가는 직전일 대비 9.5% 높은 1,435원으로 마감되었으나 시가결정 시간대에 단기차익 실현 매물이 쇄도하면서 08:31:19경 예상 체결가가 직전일 종가(1,435원)보다 125원 낮은 1,310원(예상체결수량 709주)에 형성되자 시가를 높게 형성되게 할 목적으로, 08:32:10경 M 명의의 한국증권 계좌를 통해 예상체결가(1,310원)보다 120원 높은 1,430원에 1,055주 매수주문을 제출하여 예상체결가를 1,430원까지 상승시켰으나 타인의 매수주문이 뒤따라오지 않자 다시 08:34:12경 J명의의 키움증권 계좌를 통해 예상체결가 (1,430원)보다 5원 높은 1,435원에 250주 매수주문을 제출하였고, 이에 따라 08:34:48경 ~ 08:51:25.경 중에 타인의 매수주문이 1,300원 ~ 1,450원에 총 10,767주가 제출되면서 예상체결가가 1,430원에 유지되었으나 매수 10호가 잔량(2,637주)이 매도10호가 잔량(4,011주)보다 낮게 나타나면서 예상 체결가의 하락이 예상되자, 다시 08:53:14경 | 명의의 키움증권 계좌를 통해 예상 체결가 (1,430원)보다 14원 높은 1,444원에 300주 매수주문을 제출하는 등 3회에 걸쳐 2개 증권계좌를 이용하여 반복적인 시가관여주문을 제출하여 동일 시가를 1,310원에서 1,430원으로 상승(120원, 19.2%)시킨 것을 비롯하여 2010. 11, 12.경부터 2010. 12. 7.경까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표에 기재된 바와 같이 서울 시내에서 총 12회에 걸쳐 44,862주의 시가관여 주문을 제출하여 F 주식의 매매거래가 성황을 이루는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 시세를 변동시키는 행위를 하였다.

(d) Paper order; and

피고인은 2010. 11. 19.경 같은 장소에서 종가가 1,495원을 기록한 후 5일 연속 하락세를 보이면서 2010. 11. 26.경 1,360원까지 하락하였고, 2010. 11. 29.경에도 1,370원(시가)에 매매가 시작되어 09:42:29경 장중최고가 1,390원을 기록하였으나 뚜렷한 매수세가 나타나지 않으면서 주가상승 기미가 나타나지 않았고, 14:50:00경 종가결정 시간대에 진입하면서 예상체결가가 전일 종가(1,360원)보다 5원 낮은 1,355원에 형성되자, 종가를 높게 형성되게 할 목적으로 14:50:33경 J 명의의 한국증권 계좌를 통해 예상체 결가보다 15원 높은 1,370원에 1,130주 매수주문을 제출하였으나 이후에도 계속 다인의 매도주문이 쇄도하면서 예상 체결가의 변동 없이 매도10호가 잔량만 쌓이자(5,400주→13,995주) 14:53:04경과 14:54:23경 H 명의의 한국증권 계좌와 J 명의의 키움증권 계좌를 통해 예상체결가보다 10원 높은 1,365원에 총 3,455주 매수주문을 제출하고, 이후 예상체결가가 1,365원으로 상승하자 14:57:28경과 14:57:36경에 14:50:33경(1,370원 주문)과 14:53:04경(1,365원 주문) 매수주문 가격을 1,385원과 1,380원으로 정정한 후 14:58:06 경 H 명의의 한국증권 계좌를 통해 예상 체결가 (1,365원)보다 25원 높은 1,390원(500주)에 매수주문을 제출하여 예상 체결 가를 1,375원까지 상승시킨 것을 비롯하여 2010. 11. 22.경부터 2010. 12. 7.경까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표에 기재된 바와 같이 서울 시내에서 총 10회에 걸쳐 23,785주의 촘가관여주문을 제출하여 ㈜F 주식의 매매거래가 성황을 이루는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 시세를 변동시키는 행위를 하였다.

2. Determination

A. The term "purposes to attract mers" under the main sentence of Article 176(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act means trading in which investors are likely to cause an artificial change in the market price by misunderstanding that the market price was formed by the natural demand and supply principle in the market. The term "trade that misleads investors as if the market price was formed by the natural demand and supply principle in the market or changes in the market price" under Article 176(2)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act means trading that is likely to cause an artificial change in the market price and trading volume to be formed in the market according to normal demand and supply, based on other factors that are not based on the market price and trading volume. Determination of whether each of the above requirements are satisfied should be made by comprehensively taking into account indirect facts such as the nature of the listed stocks and the total number of securities issued, price and trading volume trend, before and after trading situation, economic rationality and fairness, whether the market price was the largest or fraudulent trading, the degree of self-confluent trading, etc. (see, 2007.4.).

On the other hand, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant.

B. According to the health team and the record, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) The Defendant was a professional investor who traded shares listed in the so-called exchange. From November 1, 2010 to December 28, 2010, the period indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant traded 71 shares of CJ, etc. as well as the above FF shares. The ratio of F’s shares to the total amount of shares traded to the Defendant is about 20% around November 201, 2010, and approximately 16% around December 20 of the same year.

(2) The Defendant purchased and sold the said F shares using four accounts in the name of J, who is his father, H and H, and the account in the name of his wife M, but did not commit the act of collusion or trade among the above accounts, or did not trade in collusion with a third party (the Defendant changed to use multiple accounts due to the existence of a lending limit per each account).

(3) During the above period, the premium rate on the basis of the trading volume on the day is over 2.66%, and the price fluctuation at the time when the defendant does not trade, even when the defendant does not trade, does not have a significant impact on the purchase order of the defendant on the price fluctuation in the F shares during the above period.

(4) Of the attached list of offenses, A’s order for purchasing high-priced purchase orders is a high-priced purchase order, which is a higher price than the immediately preceding or the other party’s purchase order. The above order may occur even when an additional purchase is made at the time of a stock price increase. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to manipulate market prices in all high-priced purchase orders. In this case, the above high-priced purchase orders are much higher than the above high-priced purchase orders.

(5) Of the list of offenses in the attached Form A, A’s orders for purchase order was calculated based on the price offered at the time, which was not concluded among the orders that were not purchased at the time. However, since the average price fluctuation in the above period exceeded the price offered during the above period, it is difficult to determine the order of permit and purchase based on a uniform basis, i.e., not more than the purchase price No. 6 A., orders. When the purchase order was issued for manipulation of market prices, the order is revoked if it is possible to enter into the order due to a low price decline. In this case, there is almost no order revoked.

(6) Of the attached crime sight table, each of the orders written in A’s market access details and the paper order details are merely 12 times and 10 times respectively, and it is doubtful whether it is possible to manipulate the market price by itself. There is little question as to whether the purchase orders during the time period immediately before the conclusion of the contract that may affect the Si/Gun/Gu prices are issued.

(7) The Korea Exchange’s unfair trading monitoring system established under the Korea Exchange takes measures such as notification of wire, written notification, and registration of refusal to be entrusted when there is an order that concurrent call is doubtful during the time period. However, there is no fact that the Defendant was subject to such measures as notification of wire when trading the said shares.

C. In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s sales of the above FF shares constitutes a sale prohibited under Article 176(2)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act on the sole basis of the facts charged that he/she sold a large number of FF shares during the above period when he/she purchased the above shares at a price higher than the immediately preceding price or the other party’s sales price, or orders for purchase at a price lower than or below 6 purchase price (or orders for acceptance of orders), circumstances such as the facts charged that he/she sold a large number of F shares during the closing and closing time period, and each evidence submitted by the prosecution, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.