자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반등
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) due to the manipulation of market prices in 2012 among the facts charged against Defendant A (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “profit accrued from a violation” and “joint principal offender” as prescribed by Article 443(1) proviso and (2) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”), and by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “profit accrued from
In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground that there is a significant reason to recognize that the
Defendant
In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the violation of the Capital Markets Act (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) due to the manipulation of the market price in 2012 among the facts charged against Defendant B, on the grounds
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the said principle.