The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning in light of evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the “profit derived from a violation” under Article 443 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, in so determining, that the Defendant was guilty of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (excluding the part on innocence of the first instance court) among the facts charged in the instant case.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable

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