자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A, B, D, F, G, H, and L, Defendant I andO are not guilty.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions (hereinafter “Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”) found Defendant A’s submission of the registration statement for capital increase with consideration on May 27, 2009 by using the electronic disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service to the Financial Services Commission as a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions.
However, Defendant A was convicted of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act that submitted a false securities registration statement with respect to the submission of the said registration statement.
Since the submission of the registration statement and the submission of the performance report on the issuance of the above securities for the same capital increase with consideration shall be evaluated as one act, it shall be deemed that there exists a commercial competition relationship.
Therefore, in accordance with the final judgment of conviction on the submission of the above registration statement, a judgment of acquittal should be rendered with respect to the submission of the performance report.
B) From among the violations of the Capital Markets Act due to market manipulation, Defendant A, a corporation, CA (hereinafter “CA”) provides for the following:
(2) The lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the charges on the instant secondary market price manipulation (from January 15, 2009 to January 30, 2009) with respect to the shares of this case. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant B’s statement, etc. without credibility. (2) The sentence of imprisonment (three years and six months) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant F1’s violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and manipulation of market price manipulation was originally requested by Defendant F from Defendant A, with attracting institutional investors, that the CA shares issued by capital increase with capital increase around June 25, 2009 (block deal, and mass trading of institutional investors) were sexual intercourse.
However, it is later.