자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
The Defendants are not guilty. The Defendants are not guilty.
The lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the remaining charges except for the part of the facts charged in this case, which was found not guilty on the following grounds, and sentenced Defendant D to the suspended sentence of six months and one year and six months, respectively.
Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, the part not guilty is as follows.
With respect to Defendant D, the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) due to the false description and omission of material facts set forth in Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 11 of the List of Crimes (hereinafter “Crime List”) set forth in the judgment below (Article 1 of the said Act), the violation of Article 176(2)3 of the Capital Markets Act (Article 2013 Gohap605) (Article 1 of the said Act), and Article 443(2)2 of the said Act (Article 1 of the said Act).
Defendant F of the Republic of Korea: (a) the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the violation of Article 176(2)3 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Article 1-1(1), (2), and (4) of the 2013 senior Gohap745 charges; (b) the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Article 1-2(3) of the 2013 senior Gohap745 charges); (c) the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Article 1-2(3) of the 2013 senior Gohap745 charges). (d) the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Article 443(2)1 of the 2013 senior Gohap745 charges).
The Defendants on the appeal relation and the case before remanded, on the grounds of mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing as to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor appealed each on the grounds of unfair sentencing along with mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquittal portion of the reasons, and the judgment prior to