A. The Defendant, a mistake of facts, only submitted a normal order to secure the shares volume of SP, Inc., Ltd., and did not issue high-priced purchase or orders for the price manipulation.

In addition, when the time and closing of shares are determined by the concurrent method, this is operated by the open bid method and there is an automatic extension system to prevent the price manipulation, so the submission of purchase orders by the defendant alone is impossible.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant guilty.

B. Even if the facts charged of unfair sentencing are acknowledged, considering the fact that the Defendant’s health condition is not good, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The term “purpose of inducing a trade” under Article 176(2) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013) means a transaction that, while causing a fluctuation in the market price by artificially manipulating the market price, intends to attract investors to trade securities by misunderstanding that the market price was formed in accordance with the natural demand and supply principle in the securities market, and “trade that misleads investors of a mistake or causes a fluctuation in the market price” under subparagraph 1 of the same Article refers to a transaction that is likely to cause an artificial change in the market price and trading volume to be formed in a free competition market according to normal demand and supply, due to other factors not attributable to the market cause.

The above purpose is not an issue, but an issue is whether it exists with other purposes or its purpose.