The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, conspiredd the Defendant with D and H to commit the instant facts charged.

The decision of the court of first instance, which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the profit acquired by acquiring shares in the name of the defendant or theO or P is insufficient to recognize it as the profit acquired by using the material nonpublic information.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation and application of Article 174(1) of the former Capital Markets Act, such as the establishment of a co-principal, a co-principal, a person subject to punishment under Article 174(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 15549, Mar. 27, 2018; hereinafter “former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”), and the profits derived from a violation under Article 443(1) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, such as the establishment of a co-principal.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but did not state specific grounds for objection to the petition of appeal or the appellate brief concerning the guilty portion (part of acquittal of the grounds for appeal).

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