All appeals filed by A, B, D, E, and F and those filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. Defendant A) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) due to unfair trading, etc. in the course of AL acquisition. Defendant A merely requested AW to raise a part of the AL acquisition fund through the bond company, etc., but was not a substantial transferee of AL, and was not involved in the disclosure related to the AL acquisition.

B) Defendant A’s violation of the Capital Markets Act due to the use of material nonpublic information does not constitute “a person who acquires or disposes of stocks, etc.” under Article 174(3)1 of the Capital Markets Act. Moreover, since the time when Defendant A purchased or sells the AL stocks is prior to the conclusion of the pertinent contract, there was no material nonpublic information at the time of the conclusion of the pertinent contract. C) Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement of KRW 300 million AL funds is not a substantial operator of AL, and Defendant A did not have the status of keeping corporate

The expenditure of the above KRW 300 million was legally decided by Defendant B, who is the representative director of the AL, through a resolution of the board of directors, and it was not embezzled by Defendant A.

In addition, Defendant A does not have a competitive bid for embezzlement of KRW 300 million with Defendant E, F, and the above 300 million won. Defendant A did not have a status as a custodian of shares, nor did Defendant E, F, and embezzlement. Defendant A agreed to lend KRW 300 million rapidly to Defendant E, subject to consultation with AW, to show that Defendant E would own shares of KRW 100,000 and find an appropriate purchaser. Defendant B would have arbitrarily brought the pertinent share certificates while Defendant A was locked. Defendant B and Defendant B would have been working as a professional manager with the knowledge that Defendant A and Defendant A would lawfully accept AL, and Defendant A and W would have made a false disclosure without its own funds.