2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) the 10th 10 point out of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional arguments in the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below; and (c) thus, it is cited as it is in accordance

C. The Plaintiff, as an employee of a collective investment business entity, could easily find out which act constitutes an act of directly or indirectly receiving financial benefits in relation to the business of an investment broker, etc. prohibited under Article 85 subparag. 8 of the Capital Markets Act and Article 87(4)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s act of receiving travel expenses from the instant securities company to a million won as indicated in the attached Table, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not recognize its illegality solely because such act was conducted as a business practice. This circumstance seems to have been sufficiently considered in the course of a disciplinary decision, and the Defendant’s reprimand taken measures against the violator who received financial benefits in excess of three million won on the basis that the amount constitutes one to two occasions overseas travel expenses. Such a standard is inconsistent with Article 46(1) [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Regulation.