Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years and fine for 10,000,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 20,000,000 won into one day.

The number of days under detention prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

Attached list, etc. (Article 202. 3247 of Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, No. 189. 194 of Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office and No. 662 of Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office, No. 2008. 662 of 1) shall be confiscated, respectively.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The defendant's appeal against the violation of the Public Official Election Act in the judgment of the court below is dismissed.

Each applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

A. Defendant

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the judgment of the court of first instance (to the extent of supplementing the grounds for appeal, referring to the summary of the pleadings

(A) The point of statute of limitations

In light of the fact that the Defendant had left the Republic of Korea on December 20, 2001 and did not participate in the management of Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 1 did not manage the business of Nonindicted Co. 6, and the Defendant did not have confirmed the operating status of Nonindicted Co. 2 because he was in Hong Kong, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to have escaped with the intention of escaping criminal punishment.

(B) Forgery of private documents and the uttering of a falsified private document

The court below found the defendant guilty on the charge of forging a private document and uttering of a falsified investigation document against Nonindicted 2. However, in light of the following: (a) Nonindicted 2’s statement made to Nonindicted 3; (b) whether the defendant directly instructed Nonindicted 3 to forge a passport; (c) whether the defendant was a person who delivered a forged passport to Nonindicted 3; (d) whether the defendant instructed the defendant to forge both a passport and a written authorization for establishment of a juristic person; and (e) whether the defendant reversed all the statements on the method of forging a passport and a written authorization for establishment of a juristic person; and (e) whether the statement on the method of forging a passport and a written authorization for establishment of a juristic person is reversed several times; (b) the defendant has no motive to instruct him to forge

In addition, the Defendant did not know about the use of a forged passport after he left the Republic of Korea on December 20, 201, with domestic employees in relation to the business of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 6, and did not know about the use of a forged passport after December 20, 201.

(C) Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to market price manipulation

(1) Particulars of trading shares.

The Defendant, while attempting to acquire Nonindicted Co. 6 for the purpose of bypassing LK Bank, secured at least 37% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 6 in order to save time for acceptance and reduce acquisition cost, followed the negotiations with Gwangju Bank, and subsequently, acquired Nonindicted Co. 6 by negotiating with the Gwangju Bank. If the Gwangju Bank refused to negotiate, the Defendant was a plan to implement hostile acceptance. The Defendant was closely confiscing the shares of Nonindicted Co. 6 under this plan.

The Defendant’s sale of the shares held after acquiring the management right of Nonindicted Co. 6 was the intention to additionally collect 10% shares from the Gwangju Bank after collecting only the initial 37% shares. The Gwangju Bank demanded to purchase 20% shares and additionally purchased 20% shares. The shares that need not be held are sold equally to the extent that they do not affect the management right. In fact, the total loss incurred by the sale of shares by Nonindicted Co. 6’s acquisition of the management right is not the acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 6 for the purpose of gaining profits from the market price.

(2) Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the highest and regular transactions.

In the process of purchasing shares for acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 6’s shares, the Defendant’s act of buying shares is aimed at facilitating the convenience of stock trading by making a certain amount of commission fees to a securities company, and promptly extinguishing the volume of shares issued after offering new shares. The ratio of actual highest and regular trading to the transaction is 170,000,000 out of the total trading volume of 13.6% of the total trading volume during the total trading period.

In the case of 6 items in the list of offenses listed in [Attachment 1] and the list of offenses listed in [Attachment 6] of the lower judgment, the difference between the sale price offered and the purchase price offered one hour or more, and the difference between the sale price offered and the purchase price offered and 70,000 shares is merely 1,129 shares, and thus, it cannot be seen as a competitive transaction.

In order to avoid disclosure regulations under the Securities and Exchange Act, the entry 7 and 8 of the same crime list were distributed to sell 130,000 shares from bkc to maf plc account, but it was merely a short of the purchase fund to mafpc account, and it was transferred to maf-im account again.

Nos. 9, 11-13, and 14-22 in the list of crimes are 4,700 won per week after purchasing 4,700 won per share through the maf-im (bcc) account in order to secure the volume even after fulfilling the duty of disclosure under the Securities and Exchange Act, and 41,900 shares in the maf2d book are transferred to the maf2d account, and 190,000 shares in the mafplc account are transferred to the maf-im (bcc) account three times. However, at that time, the Financial Supervisory Service did not notify the maf-l, bkc account as to whether the investment report has been modified, and thereafter, the maf-l, and bkc account has been opened to the Maf-im (bcc) account as of 11-13.

No 23-27 is intended to increase the fee revenue of securities companies.

No. 28-31 stated in the list of crimes is that in order to avoid inconvenience in disclosure obligations while disposing of unnecessary shares after the takeover of management rights of Nonindicted Co. 6, Nonindicted Co. 6, the number of shares held is to be sold from the account of LK Bank in which the quantity does not yet exceed 5%, and the shares are transferred from Next Stint Enziss, Inc. (hereinafter “Nex Step”), Zic Ficcceces Ltd. Corpo (hereinafter “Zic”), bkc (maf-im), La Raza, Inc. Ltd. (hereinafter “Laza”) to LK Bank.

The subsequent transactions mentioned in the list of crimes No. 32 are sold to the GE Investment Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GE”), Rhodes Capal, Inc. (hereinafter “Rhode”), Prime Capital, Inc. (hereinafter “Prime”), McGraw Investment Management, Inc. (hereinafter “McGraw”).

(3) Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to expensive purchase orders.

The Defendant merely ordered the purchase of stocks at a price higher than the first sale price to collect the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 6 for the purpose of a bypass listing of LK Bank’s stocks, and did not buy the stocks at a higher price to obtain profits from market price manipulation through the stock price manipulation.

The first instance court's judgment's 2,850 won was the first selling price in the case of 1st written order of high-priced purchase list (6). The Defendant intended to purchase 4,400 shares, and the first selling price was only 3,002 shares, so in order to purchase the desired quantity, the Defendant did not have to put an order for purchase at 2,870 won higher than the first selling price. The remaining high-priced purchase transaction was concluded in the same way.

(4) Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the purchase orders.

The Defendant traded the shares of Non-Indicted 6 Co., Ltd. with the intention to make high profits through a single transaction. Since there have been a lot of cases where the lower limit of the lower limit was entered into due to a large change in the market price, some transactions were made at a price near the lower limit at the simultaneous home time, and then, in view of the market situation, the Defendant made a transaction by cancelling the purchase order or correcting the purchase price, and it was not intended to attract the purchase without the intention of purchase.

(5) Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to an order to sell it.

Under the plan to acquire Nonindicted Co. 6, the Defendant test whether the Defendant could easily collect the shares of Nonindicted Co. 6 in the stock market, and it is merely an order to sell the shares of Nonindicted Co. 6 on December 6, 200, which was issued on December 7, 200, August and 11.

(6) Summary of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act

Since new shares are allocated to each company publicly announced by the Defendant, the content of disclosure in this regard cannot be deemed false, and the companies listed in the attached list (7) of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be deemed to have published false facts insofar as they actually exist lawfully and effectively, so long as they participated in the capital increase by issuing new shares, it cannot be deemed to have published false facts. Furthermore, the Defendant did not know that the corporate approval letter No. 2 No. 13 of the same crime list No. 2 of the same crime list was forged, it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional intent to spread false facts.

Furthermore, the content of the disclosure of the purpose of the fund use should be determined based on the objective situation at the time of the fund offering, and the falsity of the content of disclosure should not be determined depending on whether the fund was actually used for the above purpose. The Defendant used the fund for the purpose of disclosure as an urgent purpose, such as repayment of debt to Gwangju Bank after the fund offering, operating expenses, Nonindicted Co. 8’s case, and request for return of investment money, etc., and the Defendant did not make a false disclosure without the intention to make an investment as stated in

(D) A violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to reporting changes in stock ownership status, violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to reporting breach of duty on large-scale stock holding status, violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to false entries in quarterly reports, and violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to

There is no intention on the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report the change in stock ownership status, the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report the large-scale stock holding status, and the violation of the

In addition, the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous in finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged with the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to false statements in quarterly reports against the defendant and the statement of non-indicted 2 and the statement of non-indicted 4.

(E) The fact that the number of days of detention is not yet counted

The court below erred in excluding the number of days detained by the defendant from the calculation of the number of days pending trial in the United States.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the first instance court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

The court of first instance rendered a judgment against the defendant after completing a separate hearing as to each of the above judgments by Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da1408, 2008Kahap606, and the court of second instance sentenced the defendant to each of the above judgments, and the prosecutor filed an appeal as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to consolidate each of the appeal cases against the defendant (However, the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act among the judgment of the court of second instance is separate). The first judgment against the defendant and the crime of uttering of the above investigation documents among the judgment of the court of second instance which found the judgment of the court of first instance guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of uttering of the above investigation documents should be sentenced to a single punishment within the scope of the punishment term aggravated under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the part of the

B. Determination of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of the first instance court

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles against the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court.

(1) As to the statute of limitations

Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the statute of limitations shall be suspended in cases where the offender stays abroad in order to escape criminal punishment. In this case, the purpose of the offender's stay abroad is not to limit the stay abroad solely for the purpose of escape criminal punishment, but to include the purpose of escape criminal punishment among various overseas stay purposes of the offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7527, Dec. 9, 2005, etc.).

The lower court determined that the Defendant, on December 6, 201, was exempt from criminal punishment on the following grounds: (i) “The Defendant had been engaged in trading of shares of Nonindicted Co. 6 using various securities accounts from around December 200; (ii) the Korea Securities Dealers Association had discovered abnormal signs in the Defendant’s stock transaction on April 201; and (iii) the Defendant had established and operated Nonindicted Co. 7 on April 27, 199; (iv) the Defendant had been ordered to return investment advisory business and discretionary investment business of Nonindicted Co. 7; and (v) the Defendant had been required to return investment money from the investors of Nonindicted Co. 6; and (v) the Defendant had been under the control of Nonindicted Co. 8 Co. 2 and the Defendant had been under the control of Nonindicted Co. 2’s office for Nonindicted Co. 1’s complaint; and (v) the Defendant had not returned to the prosecution on December 6, 2001.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending legal principles

(2) As to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private documents

The court below stated, as stated in its reasoning, that "(i) the passport of this case and the written authorization for incorporation of the non-indicted 6 corporation were used in relation to the "business" of the non-indicted 6 corporation, and it is not easy for the non-indicted 2, who is an employee of the company, to arbitrarily forge and use it without the defendant's order, ② although the defendant ordered the non-indicted 2 to establish the corporation, he did not pay the expenses for the establishment of the corporation through the service compliance, and could not confirm the process of the establishment of the corporation thereafter, and ③ Meanwhile, the non-indicted 2 stated consistently that the defendant forged the passport of this case and the written authorization for establishment of the corporation in accordance with the defendant's order from March 202 to the court, and the non-indicted 2 had already been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for this part, and completed its execution, and all of the above non-indicted 2 instructed the defendant to forge the non-indicted corporation's passport of this case, and determined that it was reasonable for the defendant to use the name of the non-indicted 20 corporation to be forged or falsified.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just (the statement at the investigation agency of Nonindicted 2 and the court of first instance under the order of the defendant to forge a passport was given again to Nonindicted 3, who can work for the World Trade Organization, and the written approval for the establishment of a juristic person was forged by himself, or forged by another employee, and the whole statement is not consistent or contradictory, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

(3) On the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to market price manipulation

(A) The violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the highest and intermediate trading, high-priced purchase orders, and false purchase and sale orders

제1 원심은 “㉠ 피고인은 무려 38개의 증권계좌를 통하여 주식거래를 해왔음에도 시세조종기간 동안 공소외 6 주식회사의 주식만을 거래하였을 뿐 그 외의 다른 주식은 거의 거래하지 아니하였던 점, ㉡ 광주은행은 공소외 6 주식회사의 인수가격을 주당 4,500원 내지 4,600원으로 예상하고 있었고, 캐피탈웍스에서는 2000. 12.경 실제 그 정도 가격으로 공소외 6 주식회사의 경영권을 인수하려 하였으므로, 피고인으로서는 2000. 12.경 위와 같은 가격으로 공소외 6 주식회사의 경영권을 인수할 수 있었음에도 불구하고, 2000. 12. 6.경부터 비정상적인 거래를 함으로써 2000. 12. 초경 2,300원이던 주가를 2001. 1. 말경 7,000원 상당으로 상승시켰고, 그 후에야 비로소 광주은행측에 공소외 6 주식회사의 인수 제의를 하였는데, 그 무렵 피고인은 약 140만 6,476주(총 발행주식 384만 주의 약 37.1%)의 주식을 보유하고 있어 광주은행보다 많은 주식을 보유하고 있었던 점, ㉢ 피고인은, 주식 매집 과정에서 주가가 상승한 것일 뿐 주가 조종행위는 하지 아니하였고, 경영권 인수를 위해 주식을 매집하고 있던 피고인이 인위적으로 주가를 부양한다는 것은 있을 수 없는 일이라고 주장하나, 피고인은 2001. 1. 11.경 공소외 6 주식회사의 주식 1,209,950주(총 발행주식 384만 주의 31.5%)를 이미 확보하고 있었던 반면, 2001. 2. 26. 광주은행으로부터 취득한 주식은 76만 주(총 발행주식의 약 20%)에 불과하였으므로, 피고인으로서는 주가 상승으로 인한 인수가격 부담보다는 이미 확보한 지분에 대한 가격 상승이 더 큰 이익으로 작용하였을 것으로 보이고, 실제 피고인은 공소외 6 주식회사의 경영권을 인수하기 이전인 2001. 1. 30.경부터 지속적으로 주식을 매각하였으며, 이후 5차례에 걸친 유상증자로 취득한 주식도 계속하여 순차 매각하였던 점(수사기록 제1권 제108면 이하), ㉣ 피고인은 시세조종기간 동안 공소외 6 주식회사의 경영권 인수를 위하여 주식을 대량 매입하였고, 경영권 인수 이후에는 총 5회에 걸쳐 유상증자를 실시하였던바, 피고인으로서는 경영권 인수를 위한 주식의 매집 단계에서는 저가에 주식을 매집하기 위하여 주가를 하락시킬 필요성이 있었던 반면, 유상증자 단계에서는 그로 인한 이익을 유지하기 위하여 주가를 하락시키지 않아야 할 필요성이 있었던 점, ㉤ 이 사건 〈허수매도 주문내역〉상의 주문은 피고인이 공소외 6 주식회사의 주식을 매집하는 기간(2000. 12. 6. ~ 2000. 12. 11.)에 이루어졌는데, 주식을 매집하고 있던 피고인이 위 주식에 대한 매도주문을 낸다는 것을 쉽게 납득되지 아니할 뿐 아니라, 2000. 12. 8. 08:56:58경부터 09:44:46경까지 사이에 매도1호가 대비 310원에서 160원 높은 2,940원에 11회에 걸쳐 36,000주를 매도주문 하였으나, 주가가 2,900원까지 상승하자 위 매도주문을 모두 취소하여 한 주도 계약 체결되지 아니하도록 하였던 것에 비추어 볼 때, 위와 같은 매도 주문은 주식 매집과정에 있던 피고인이 인위적으로 주가를 하락시키기 위한 것으로 보이는 점, ㉥ 한편 이 사건 시세조종행위 당시는 소위 ‘IMF 외환위기’ 직후로서 국내 일반투자자들이 외국인의 특정 기업에 대한 투자를 호재성 정보로 인식하고 있던 시기였으므로, 외국인들이 특정 기업에 투자하면 그 기업의 주가가 상승하는 경향이 있었음에도, 피고인은 공소외 6 주식회사의 경영권을 인수하기 이전인 2001. 1. 17.경 외국계 회사인 MAF Limited와 Optional Ventures, Inc가 경영참가를 목적으로 공소외 6 주식회사의 주식을 인수하였다고 공시함으로써 주가 상승요인을 스스로 제공하기도 하였던바, 위와 같은 공시는 이미 확보한 주식의 가격을 인위적으로 부양하기 위한 것으로 보일 뿐 아니라, 실제 위 공시 이후 주가가 급등하기도 하였던 점(수사기록 제1권 제181, 182면, 수사기록 제11권 제5780면), ㉦ 피고인은 2001. 1. 17. 종가결정을 위한 동시호가 시간대인 14:52:04경 직전가 대비 1,040원 높은 가격인 6,040원에 3,000주를 고가 매수하는 등 2000. 12. 12.경부터 2001. 4. 27.경까지 총 31회에 걸쳐 〈고가매수 주문내역〉과 같은 매수주문을 하였는데, 광주은행으로부터 공소외 6 주식회사의 주식 76만 주를 인수하여 경영권을 취득한 이후에도 계속하여 고가매수 주문을 하였던 점, ㉧ 이 사건 〈허수매수 주문내역〉과 같은 주문은 2001. 2. 13.경부터 2001. 11. 30.경까지 이루어졌는데, 피고인은 2001. 7. 4. 08:56:33경 전일종가 및 직전가대비 400원 내지 440원 낮은 3,230원에 12만 주의 매수주문을 내었다가 같은 날 다른 계좌를 이용하여 직전가대비 110원 낮은 3,490원에 20만 주를 매수주문하여 매수 잔량을 쌓은 후, 11:32:04 내지 11:32:16경 위 12만 주의 주문을 취소하고, 14:25:29경 주가가 3,600원에서 3,580원으로 하락하여 체결가능성이 높아지자 위 주문을 3,450원으로 낮게 매수가격을 정정하였고, 위와 같은 매수 주문의 취소 및 정정행위를 반복하였던 점, ㉨ 이 사건 〈가장·통정매매 주문내역〉과 같은 주문은 시가조종기간 전반에 걸쳐 이루어졌고, 특히 시가 또는 종가결정을 위한 시간대에 집중적으로 이루어졌던 점, ㉩ 피고인은 2000. 12. 5.경부터 공소외 6 주식회사의 주식을 매집하기 시작하여 2001. 1. 11.경에는 이미 1,209,950주(총 발행주식 384만 주의 31.5%)를 보유하고 있었고, 2. 26.경 광주은행으로부터 76만 주(총 발행주식의 약 20%)를 추가로 매입하였으며, 2001. 10. 5.에는 10,721,743주(당시 총 발행주식 1,654만 주의 약 64.8%)를 보유하기도 하는 등 공소외 6 주식회사 주식에 대한 상당한 영향력을 가지고 있었던 점(수사기록 제1권 제108면 이하), ㉪ 공소외 6 주식회사의 총 발행주식수는 시세조정기간 동안 384만주에서 1,654만주로 증가하였는데, 피고인은 위 기간 중 총 63,579,315주에 대한 매수 또는 매도 주문을 하여, 16,068,217주를 매수하고 21,321,529주를 매도하였던 점, ㉫ 피고인의 공소외 6 주식회사 주식에 대한 시세조종기간 평균 시세관여율은 16.6%에 달하였고, 2001. 7. 6.에는 52.92%의 시세관여율을 보이기도 하였던 점(수사기록 제1권 제126면), ㉬ 위와 같은 피고인의 주식거래로 인하여 2000. 12. 5.에 2,350원이던 공소외 6 주식회사의 주가는 2001. 2. 1. 8,130원으로 상승하여 245.9% 상승하였고, 이후 대규모 유상증자에 따른 등락을 반복하다가 시세조정행위가 끝날 무렵인 2001. 11. 30.경에는 2,720원 정도에 머물렀던 점, ㉭ 피고인은 시세조종기간 동안 자사주인 공소외 6 주식회사의 주식매매 업무만을 수행하였을 뿐, 본래의 업무인 창업투자지원업무는 전혀 하지 아니하였던 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 피고인에게는 '거래가 성황을 이루고 있는 듯이 잘못 알게 하거나 기타 타인으로 하여금 그릇된 판단을 하게 할 목적'과 ‘매매거래를 유인할 목적’이 있었다고 봄이 상당하다. 가사 피고인에게 공소외 6 주식회사의 경영권 인수를 위한 목적이 있었더라도 이와 함께 공소외 6 주식회사의 주가를 인위적으로 부양하려는 목적 또한 있었던 것으로 인정되는 이상 피고인의 행위가 증권거래법 제188조의4 제1항 , 제2항 위반행위에 해당함에는 아무런 영향이 없다.”고 판단하였다.

Based on evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is for the court below to demand the same price and time in the price manipulation through the most recent market price manipulation. As such, market price manipulation is established even if the specific time and price of the order are different as long as the sale and purchase is established, the 130,000 shares of the non-indicted 6 corporation are transferred from bbkc account to mafpc account, while the sale and purchase price is continuously increased, it is difficult to view the balance to be subject to disclosure obligation under the Securities and Exchange Act (Evidence No. 9363 of the evidence record). Since bkc was not erroneous for the defendant to acquire shares of the non-indicted 6 corporation from MAD on January 17, 201 to 201, the court below did not have any other reasons to acknowledge that the defendant had any other person to acquire shares of the non-indicted 1 corporation from 10,000 to 10,000 shares under the Securities and Exchange Act.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable in light of the general rule of experience to purchase and sell shares at the first highest price without using the method of purchasing the remaining shares at the second highest price, even some of the purchase quantity desired at the first highest price, and it seems that the defendant purchased shares at the first highest price is aimed at promptly purchasing the desired quantity. Furthermore, even if it is not deemed that there was a special purpose of use after the purchase, it is not deemed that there was a special purpose of use after the purchase. In light of the above, it is recognized that the defendant made an order to purchase and sell shares at a high price for the purpose of inducing the purchase and sale.

(B) Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to false facts of prisoners of war

1) Under the premise of the legal principles as indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant to be aware of the fact that “i.e., the disclosure of the foreign corporation’s participation in the capital increase with capital increase; (ii) Nonindicted Co. 6’s arbitrary establishment of the company; (iii) the domestic companies should actively attract foreign investment by using the so-called “IMF foreign exchange crisis; and (iv) the domestic ordinary investors were aware of foreign investment as information; and accordingly, there was a tendency that the company’s capital increase if foreign investors make investment in a specific company; (iv) some of the foreign corporations were issued with the foreign investment registration certificate by forging the corporate establishment authorization certificate (No. 26 of the lower judgment ? No. 26 of the lower judgment ? No. 1 through No. 8 of the list 2); and (v) Nonindicted Co. 6’s establishment of the Defendant’s arbitrary establishment of the company; and (v) Nonindicted Co. 10, 111 of the new capital increase with the disclosure plan that it did not have any specific business performance.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are just, and there is no error of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles.

(4) As to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report the change in stock ownership, the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report large-scale stock holding status, the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to false entries in quarterly reports

There is a criminal intent under the Criminal Code. It is sufficient that if a person commits or attempts to commit a crime while recognizing that the crime was committed by his own intentional act, he will be committed or attempted to commit such act (Supreme Court Decision 87Do1240 delivered on October 13, 1987).

Based on its stated reasoning, the court below found the defendant guilty of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report the change in stock ownership status, violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report the change in stock ownership status, violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report the

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below was just in finding that the court below found the non-indicted 2 and 4 guilty of violating each of the above Securities and Exchange Act after finding that the non-indicted 2 and 4's statement was trusted. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

(5) As to the non-existence of pre-trial detention

Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that pre-trial detention is a compulsory disposition which inevitably detains a defendant or a suspect in order to prosecute, but is similar to the type of deprivation of liberty, and therefore, the whole or part of the pre-trial detention days shall be included in the principal sentence from the perspective of protection of human rights. The number of days for which the defendant demanded inclusion in the principal sentence as pre-trial detention days is not a compulsory disposition period which has been inevitably done in order to achieve the purpose of prosecution, but it is merely a period for which the defendant escaped to the United States after committing an offense, and has been arrested pursuant to the extradition treaty between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America, and thus constitutes the pre-trial detention days to be included in the principal sentence (Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do6378 delivered on March 25, 2003; 2004Do482 delivered on April 27, 2004).

C. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing on the violation of the Public Official Election Act

In light of the fact that the Defendant published false facts for the purpose of preventing a candidate for e-mail from being elected in the 17th presidential election, and that the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offense are not good, and that the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, etc. are various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, it is not recognized that the punishment of the Defendant against the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act as indicated in the judgment of the court below is adequate and too excessive, considering the fact that the Defendant was unaware of the United States since he was born in Korea since 5 years old since he was born in Korea, the Defendant was in short of understanding the Korean election culture; the Defendant was working in the GE Capital Group after graduating and the Simna University, etc. were graduated from the college where flowing water such as the Kolllle Group and Simna University, and the Defendant was working in the way to contribute to the Korean economy.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance on the use of an investigative document as seen above have grounds for reversal ex officio, the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part on the use of the investigative document among the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without further proceeding to decide on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor (the prosecutor appealed only to the judgment of the court of first instance) on this part

On the other hand, the appeal by the defendant against the violation of the Public Official Election Act among the judgment of the court of second instance is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

【Court of First Instance】

Articles 231, 30 (The point of each private document specified in paragraph (1) at the time of sale, each of which is imprisonment), 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of exercising each of the above investigation documents specified in paragraph (1) at the time of sale, the point of exercising each of the above investigation documents, and the choice of each of the imprisonment)

Article 3 (1) 1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356 and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of occupational embezzlement as stated in Article 3 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, together with imprisonment and fine

Article 207-2 subparag. 2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 6695 of Apr. 27, 2002), Article 188-4(1)3, Article 188-4(2)1, and Article 188-3(2)3 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 6695 of Apr. 27, 2002)

Articles 210 subparag. 5 and 188(6) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004) (Article 210 subparag. 5 and Article 188(6) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 2

Articles 210 subparag. 5 and 200-2(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004), 210 subparag. 5 and Article 200-2(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29,

Article 207-3 subparagraph 2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004) and Article 186-3 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 200)

Article 211 subparagraph 2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004) and Article 186 (1) 13 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004)

【Court of Second Instance】

Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act (the use, inclusive, of the uttering of a falsified investigation document at the time of sale)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [In cases of imprisonment with prison labor, the punishment shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes as prescribed by the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) for which the largest punishment is to be imposed, and in cases of fines, the punishment shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes of crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Provided, That the punishment shall be aggregated to the maximum amount of the above two crimes) and the punishment shall be imposed concurrently];

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

2. The first instance judgment, while managing the funds embezzled by the Defendant or the disposal price for new shares issued with capital increase issued by Nonindicted Co. 6, remitted the amount exceeding 20 million U.S. dollars to an overseas account, such as GE, La Roza, etc., managed by himself and his family through the accounts such as GE, Roza, etc. In addition, even if accepting the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion, the remittance amount seems to exceed 10 million U.S. dollars, except for the portion at issue.

(a) The amount of money embezzled by the defendant abroad;

On August 9, 2001, the Defendant deposited KRW 500 million in La Roza account (101-172737-10) instead of L2, 201 and transferred KRW 600 million to La Roza Samsung Securities account (3505341-50) (Evidence 3704 pages, 417 pages), again, deposited KRW 172,618,810 on August 23, 201 and KRW 427,429,410 on April 24, 206 of the same month, and deposited KRW 80 billion in Roza account (43-5070709-10), but on August 27, 2001, the Defendant deposited KRW 605 billion in the above account with Ro 405 billion (Evidence 4627,50708,6466566,6566,60566,65666,65666,6,67,67, etc.7, of the public account of Korea).

Of the total amount of KRW 1.5 billion deposited in the GE Securities account (101-172736-10) by the Defendant embezzled on August 16, 2001, 200, the KRW 500,000 deposited on August 16, 2001 (US$ 400,165,00) was remitted to the Next StP account (Evidence 3697, 412, 6703), August 24, 2001, and August 28, 2001 (Evidence 3697, 4112, 6703, 6703, 50,000 won deposited in the GE Securities account on August 28, 201, the KRW 50,000 deposited in the GE Securities Account (Evidence 3531636-50, 2057, 2078, 2008).

As embezzlement on September 3, 2001, the Defendant deposited KRW 926,878,127 (U.S. 721,936.10) out of the 1 billion won deposited in the Rhode’s substitute account (101-172740-10) (U.S. 721,936.10) with the Rhode’s Samsung Securities Account (3567936-50) and Rhode’s mobilization securities account (43-50703-01) on September 6, 2001 (Evidence 3705 pages, 4132 pages, 509, 5013, 89113, 8911), and the Rhode’s mobilization securities account (43-5070703-01). (Evidence evidence was transferred to the Rhode’s foreign exchange bank account on September 6, 2001).

90,549,21 won deposited in the same account on September 6, 2001 with Prime substitute account (101-17132-10), and 37,549,221 won deposited in the same account on the 10th day of the same month after embezzlement of 100 million won (Account Number 43-50726-01) was used as stock transaction price, and deposited in the account on January 19, 201 279,376,100, 958, 000 won on September 87, 2001, 100, 120, 120, 434,800 won on October 16, 201, 379, 379,707-19,379-14,7400 won deposited in each of the P-49,750-1,7500 won deposited in each of the accounts.

Of the Defendant’s 5,872,694,393 won embezzled on October 16, 2001, 400 million won deposited in the GE Securities Account (101-172736-10) on October 16, 2001, the Defendant purchased 329,08 shares of Nonindicted Co. 6 Co. 329,08 with other funds, and then deposited 524,396,84 won in the GE Securities Exchange Account (Account Number 43-50703-01) on October 22 and 23, 2001, 400.

Thus, from August 2001 to October 20 of the same year, the sum of the amounts that the defendant remitted from the accounts such as La Raza and GE to the overseas accounts such as Next Step is not more than 510 U.S. dollars.

B. The amount remitted abroad out of the charges for the disposal of new shares issued by the Defendant with capital increase issued by Nonindicted Co. 6

Pursuant to the first capital increase increase, KRW 200,00,00, which was deposited in GE mobilization securities business account (001-503963-01), was deposited in the same account on June 13, 2001, and thereafter deposited in GE mobilization securities MMF account, GE mobilization securities MF account, GE mobilization securities MF account (043-50702-01), and deposited in the same account on August 16, 2001, and transferred KRW 158,583,150 (U.S. 133,771.75 U.S.) to Nex P account on the same day (Evidence record 4490,500, 6703 pages), and McG 1650,000,000 McG 50,0169-1650,000,000 P.1651).

On June 26, 2001, 60, 200, 60,000 paid-in capital increase, 150,000, 150,000 out of the 150,000, 136,153 out of the 136,153, 153, 79,922,81 won of the sales price of the above 793,922,881 won was deposited in the Roa Rza Roza M&F account, and again deposited 91,282,445 won including the above 746,813.45 U.S. dollars was deposited in LA Rza Poza foreign exchange account, and was transferred to the Ntp account over two occasions (Evidence record 6704, 9608, 9614, 9616, 9616).

Of the shares with 3th and 4th capital increase, one hundred and fifty thousand U.S. dollars from among the shares with compensation allocated under the name of Blastone, Inc. (hereinafter “Blastone”) and 50,000 U.S. dollars from each of the securities accounts of 1.1 million U.S. dollars and ASX, and ADor. Among them, 1.1 million U.S. dollars were returned to the mobilization securities account of La Roza, and 2,601,236.57 U.S. dollars were subsequently sold in succession, and transferred to the Nex Step and Zic account (Evidence record 6704 pages, 6871 to 6875 pages).

The fifth commercial share of 99,885, allotted to FMC, was sold in KRW 1,565,461,117 (U.S. 1,172,893) on January 25, 2002, and was transferred to an Ador and ASX account on January 25, 2002, along with the stock price sold in Andor and ASX (Evidence No. 857,864 pages).

Therefore, the sum of the amounts transferred to an overseas account, such as Nza Roza account, etc. after the Defendant sold the shares issued with capital increase from August 2001 to January 2002 is 5.9 million U.S. dollars.

3. The Defendant, while separately managing the proceeds from embezzlement and the proceeds from the disposal of new stocks, has remitted a huge amount of money to a foreign country as above and has received a large amount of money individually, yet the Defendant still did not make any reimbursement to the majority investors who suffered damage due to the price manipulation by Nonindicted Company 6, and did not refund the money acquired by embezzlement.

4. Meanwhile, the Defendant graduated from the University of flowing water of the United States and worked in Korea with the mind of contributing to the Korean economy, and the Defendant committed the crime in the state of insufficient understanding of the situation in Korea since the University was established in the United States, and the Defendant committed the crime in the state of insufficient understanding of the situation in Korea. However, the Defendant recognized the establishment of embezzlement crime and against his mistake.

5. Therefore, various circumstances mentioned above and the defendant was arrested in the United States on May 27, 2004 according to the extradition procedure and was actually detained for three years and five months until he/she was repatriated and detained in the Republic of Korea on November 16, 2007, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as per the disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Jo Hee-de (Presiding Judge)