All appeals filed by A, B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Although Defendant A and B did not commit a crime of undermining the market price of shares in collusion with R, M, L, etc. (hereinafter “K”), Defendant A and B did not commit a crime of undermining the market price of shares in collusion with R, M, and L (hereinafter “the instant crime of undermining the market price”), the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding Defendant A and B’s conspiracy, thereby finding Defendant A guilty of committing the instant crime of undermining the market price.

2) Defendant A and B conspired to commit the instant market price control, which was improper in sentencing.

Even if the court below's sentence imposed on Defendant A and B (the 4 years of suspended sentence in 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A and B: 4 years of suspended sentence in 3 years of imprisonment, Defendant C: fine of KRW 30 million in total, and KRW 200,000 per day of converted imprisonment) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination as to Defendant A and B’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below held that the Defendant A and B committed the market price of this case [the charge of this case concerning the purpose of 470,000 K shares held by Defendant A and B, which are different from the charge of this case (the charge of this case concerning the purpose of 4,70,000 K shares held by Defendant A and B, was to borrow money as collateral and raise a market price flight fund. However, the court below proved that this part of the charge of this case

In addition, the court below found Defendant A and B guilty of committing a crime of operating the market price of this case, which is partially different from the facts charged of this case without any modification of an indictment, and found Defendant A and B did not object to procedural objection and only object to the determination of its substance). The above summary is as follows.