자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반
All appeals are dismissed.
No. 4 and 5 of the facts constituting the crime of the first instance judgment on April 1, 201.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the records, it is just to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendants on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants’ violation of the former Act on the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets (amended by Act No. 12947, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “former Capital Market Act”); (b) Defendant A’s violation of the former Capital Market Act on W, X, and Y; (c) Defendant B’s violation of the former Capital Market Act on the Z, and AA’s violation of the former Capital Market Act on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules; or by misapprehending the legal principles on “an internal or quasi-internal person who received material nonpublic information” under Article 174(1) of the former Capital Market Act.
On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the remaining guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.
2. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal
A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the former Capital Market Act with respect to AG among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “un
B. However, the court below's above defendant.