Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of ten months.

except that this shall not apply.

A. The sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant A (unfair punishment) (two years of suspended sentence in February of one year and two years of imprisonment, community service work 160 hours, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (De facto mistake, unreasonable sentencing) 1) Defendant A’s J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”).

(2) The sentence (2) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (2 years of suspended execution in October, 190, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, because it was merely an internal sale of J shares 390,000 shares offered to the bond company as security by acceptance, and the Defendants did not trade the said shares for artificial manipulation.

C. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing with respect to Defendant A)’s sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In the case of an ex officio judgment following the amendment of indictment, the prosecutor filed an application for the amendment of indictment with respect to the Defendants as stated below (the judgment in multiple forms) and the same as stated in facts constituting a crime and the summary of evidence, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court within the scope of the modified facts charged despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

3. In order to establish a crime of violation of Article 188-4 (1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007), Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts requires “the purpose of misleading any person or causing any other person to make a wrong judgment” as a subjective element in addition to the fact of the conspiracy, trade or fictitious trade. This purpose is to determine whether there exists a co-existence with other purposes or to make a wrong judgment.