A. On October 29, 2015, which is within the period of reporting, with respect to the order Nos. 1 attached to the lower judgment, the obligation to report was performed on October 29, 2015, and as to the order Nos. 3, 5, and (6) and 6 through 9, which is within the period of obligation to report, the Defendant failed to perform the obligation to report on the grounds that the details of changes arising from transactions by specially related persons cannot be known, and as to the order Nos. 2 and (4) of the crime List No. 1, the mere fact that the Defendant failed to report the change in the terms of a contract for acquisition of stocks and management rights does not constitute

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 15 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principles, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by considering the same argument as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below. In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion

The defendant's assertion of the above legal principles is without merit.

Although the defendant asserts to the effect that some of the facts constituting an offense (Article 1(6)-6 of the List of Crimes Nos. 2-4 of the Attached Table No. 1) have been omitted, the defendant led to the confession of this part of the crime, and the defendant stated in the court below as evidence that "the unfair transaction results and the resolution of the shares in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd." is related to this part of the crime.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions when compared to the first instance court’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).