1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the adopted evidence of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, it is possible to entrust the defendant 1 with the issuance of KRW 50 million by requesting the victim to make an investment in stocks, and fully recognize the fact of the accident of stocks in several times in the victim's name without mind with the victim. Thus, the court below did not properly conduct a hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal and did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence and thereby

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 107 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that when a securities company is entrusted by a customer with the sale and purchase transaction of securities, it may conduct such sale and purchase transaction under the authority of the customer only with the volume and price of such securities, and the time of such sale and purchase. In this case, the type and issue of such securities and the classification and method of such sale and purchase shall be determined by the customer, and the decision thereon shall not be permitted. Thus, a violation of Article 107 (1) of the Act, which is punished pursuant to subparagraph 3 of Article 208 of the Act, was committed by a securities company under the authority of the customer with regard to the volume and price of securities, the type and issue of such securities, and the classification and method of such securities transaction. However, although the securities company was authorized with regard to the volume and sale and purchase of securities, the act of comprehensive sale and purchase and sale without the customer's decision, such act shall be included in the discretionary transaction without the customer's decision, and it shall not be related to the decision in writing (see Supreme Court Decision 29Do.

Although the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below received customer's decision on the types and items of securities and the classification and methods of sale of securities from the victim, it is not appropriate to determine as if the victim did not make a written decision, but as seen above, Defendant 1 made a comprehensive discretionary sale without the victim's decision as to the types and items of securities and the classification and methods of sale, and as long as the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance is included in the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance, as long as the purport of the judgment is included in the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant 1 is deemed to have violated Article 208 subparagraph 3 and Article 107 (1) of the Act on the ground that the court below violated the restriction on discretionary sale, and Defendant 2 is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or interpretation of the law contrary to the principle of no punishment without a law as

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)