When Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 did not pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years for Defendant 3, for three years for Defendant 4, for one year for Defendant 7, for Defendant 8, for two years for Defendant 8.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the use of material nonpublic information related to the acquisition of △△△ among the facts charged against Defendant 1, the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to unfair trading related to the attraction of investment in △△△△, the embezzlement against Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 2, and the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to the use of material nonpublic information related to the acquisition of △△△△ among the facts charged against Defendant 4, Defendant 9 (original trial: Defendant 8),

【Criminal Power and Basic Facts】

Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for the crime of occupational embezzlement at the Seoul Eastern District Court on November 22, 2013, and the judgment was finalized on September 4, 2014. From November 19, 2007 to October 25, 2012, Defendant 1 served as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 4”) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 4”) who acquired the status of the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 19 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 19”) who acquired the status of Nonindicted Co. 4 on March 10, 2010, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 19 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 19”) who acquired the status of the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4, who was the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4 and was the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4 up to the day.

On May 27, 2013, Defendant 3 was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in the Seoul Central District Court on May 27, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 1, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, such as Defendant 1’s acquisition of sets, etc.

A person who holds at least 5/100 of the total number of stocks held by him/herself and any specially related person shall report his/her holding status and the purpose of holding stocks to the Financial Services Commission and the Korea Exchange within five days from the date on which he/she holds stocks, and where the ratio of stocks held by him/her changes above the ratio of 1/100 of the total number of stocks, etc. of the relevant corporation, he/she shall report the changes to the Financial Services Commission and

Defendant 1, around October 1, 2010, transferred 5.6 million Won (19.43%) out of the warrant certificates of bonds with warrants issued by Nonindicted 4 Co. 3 on September 3, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “work”) from the △△△△ Bank on September 3, 2010 to the 5.6 million Won (19.43%), using the name of Nonindicted 23, who held the same, and filed a false report as if Nonindicted 23 owns it, and did not file a report on possession of stocks by October 7, 2010.

In addition, Defendant 1 transferred 5 million weeks (17.7%) out of the sets owned in Nonindicted 23’s name to Nonindicted 11, etc. (excluding Nonindicted 23 and 6 million weeks) on December 19, 2011 and around December 15, 2011, Defendant 1 failed to file a report on possession of stocks by December 19, 201, and failed to perform his duty to report on possession of stocks by December 19, 201.

2. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

No one shall spread a rumor that fluctuations in the market price of securities or exchange-traded derivatives are caused by his/her or another person's manipulation with an intention to attract anyone to trade listed securities or exchange-traded derivatives.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 and Defendant 8, at a restaurant where the trade name in Seoul is unknown on May 201, the following: (a) Defendant 8 told Nonindicted 2 to the effect that “The share price will be raised up to ten times the share price by operations of Nonindicted Company 4; and (b) Defendant 1 recommended Nonindicted 4 to make an investment in the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 for the same purpose.”

In addition, from May 201 to January 201, 201, Defendant 1 and Defendant 8 conspireded with Defendant 1 and Defendant 8 to spread to Nonindicted 2, etc., Defendant 1, who is the seat of Defendant 8, either directly or through Defendant 8, the share holder of Nonindicted Company 4, who was the seat of Defendant 8, in eight times, as indicated in the annexed crime list (1).

3. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by Defendant 1 related to the acquisition of △△;

Defendant 1 decided to take over 51% of the equity interest in the △△△△ (Seoulan ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Egineed. hereinafter “△△△△△”) located in the Saudi Arabian State, and decided on December 16, 201 to take over KRW 51 billion from Nonindicted Co. 33 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 33”) on or around December 4, 2011, upon entering into an agreement with Nonindicted Co. 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 3”) with Nonindicted Co. 12, who entered into a contract to take over 60% of the equity interest in △△△△△△ (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 3”) around December 4, 201, Defendant 1 agreed to take over KRW 510 equity interest in △△△△△△ (51%) from Nonindicted Co. 3 as KRW 11,00,000,000).

After that, around January 9, 2012, Defendant 1 prepared a written agreement to purchase 510 billion won of the shares of △△△△△△, and at the same time, Defendant 1 prepared “a written agreement related to a contract to acquire shares and management rights transfer” with the purport that “where Nonindicted Co. 12’s representative director of Nonindicted Co. 3 fails to offer capital increase in the amount of KRW 2 billion to secure the cost of acquiring △△△△△△ by January 31, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 3 reduces the balance of KRW 1.5 billion that Nonindicted Co. 3 will receive, until January 31, 2012.”

On January 31, 2012, Defendant 1 paid KRW 1.5 billion to Nonindicted Co. 3 on the balance, and paid KRW 5.1 billion in total the acquisition price. Under the agreement, Defendant 1 received a return of KRW 1.5 billion from Nonindicted Co. 12 in accordance with the agreement, and embezzled Defendant 10 billion in total by arbitrarily using KRW 1.4 billion from February 2012 to August 2012, 2012, as indicated in the attached list of crimes (2) during the course of business custody for the victim Nonindicted Co. 4.

4. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

A. The motive for crime

On April 2012, Defendant 1 entered into an agreement with Nonindicted 35 to transfer the right of management, etc., and Nonindicted 35 did not perform the obligation to report ownership to Nonindicted 35 on possession in order to assist Defendant 1 to provide funds for acquisition of the right of management, etc. and delivered approximately 4 million shares out of the shares held by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 35 and received a stock security loan from Nonindicted 35.

Since then, as the stock price of Nonindicted Co. 4 fell below the collateral ratio due to the decline in the stock price, on May 2012, the above bond company would dispose of the shares offered as collateral within the cover (tentative opposite trade) and Defendant 1 would lose the shares of the above 4 million shares, which are the large shareholder's shares. Accordingly, Defendant 1 ordered Defendant 4, who is the partner of Defendant 1, to collect the shares of the large shareholder by using nine borrowed accounts, and ordered Defendant 1 to collect the shares of the large shareholder.

B. Specific criminal facts

A person who holds at least 5/100 of the total number of stocks held by him/herself and any specially related person shall report his/her holding status and the purpose of holding stocks to the Financial Services Commission and the Korea Exchange within five days from the date on which he/she holds stocks, and where the ratio of stocks held by him/her changes above the ratio of 1/100 of the total number of stocks, etc. of the relevant corporation, he/she shall report the changes to the Financial Services Commission and

Defendant 1: (a) around May 2012, instructed Defendant 4 to collect shares in the borrowed name account; (b) delivered KRW 4.7 billion to Defendant 4; (c) from May 31, 2012 to July 25, 2012, Defendant 4, who caused son, etc. to submit approximately KRW 5.7 billion to nine borrowed names, such as Nonindicted 36, etc., respectively; (d) deposited approximately KRW 4.7 billion in total; and (e) purchased approximately KRW 3.84 million shares of Nonindicted Company 4 by using the same as indicated in the attached list of crimes (3); and (e) purchased approximately KRW 3.84 million shares of Nonindicted Company 4; and (e) failed to report the violation of the obligation to report the ownership status at KRW 7 times, etc., as indicated in the attached list of crimes (i.e., KRW 10%).

5. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

(a) motive for crime;

Defendant 2, an expert such as M&A, who was in general in charge of the operation of the company by the president of Nonindicted Co. 4 on October 2012, in managing and improving the financial structure of Nonindicted Co. 1, who was in charge of the operation of the company, agreed to transfer the stocks and the management right of Defendant 1 to a third party at a higher price, and receive approximately KRW 1.5 billion from 1.5 billion to 3 billion according to the sale price of the management right. From around that time, Defendant 2 managed the financial status, etc. of Nonindicted Co. 4, while Defendant 1 was in charge of managing the financial status

Defendant 2, while managing the financial affairs of Nonindicted Co. 4, on February 2013, when the financial affairs of Nonindicted Co. 4 have aggravated, and there is a risk of designating the issues of management due to the increase in the capital erosion rate in excess of 50%, in the event that large-scale capital increase has not been made due to the increase in the capital erosion rate. Defendant 2, upon obtaining Defendant 1’s consent, borrowed the large-scale shares of Defendant 1 as collateral and paid the amount of such capital increase, and Defendant 1, who was subject to Nonindicted Co. 19, as the representative director, promoted capital increase in the amount equivalent to KRW 3.444 billion of Nonindicted Co. 4 on February 22, 2013.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2: (a) concluded a sales contract with Nonindicted Co. 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 5”) operated by Nonindicted Co. 6 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 5”) who wishes to acquire the management right of the said company; and (b) paid a portion of the said sales price in installments; and (c) deducted Defendant 1 from part of the said sales price in a manner of receiving a refund; and (d) used Defendant 1’s interest on the bonds offered as security and borrowed as a repayment of the borrowed money, etc. to Defendant 2.

B. Specific criminal facts

around March 25, 2013, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 concluded a contract with Nonindicted Company 5 and Nonindicted Company 6 to take over KRW 300,220,000 (i.e., 1., 350,000 won of the down payment and intermediate payment) for the three-year total printing right and 300,000 won of “i.e., tin rice manufacturing device” with Nonindicted Company 5 operated by Nonindicted Company 6, and paid KRW 1,350,000,000 in the remainder on June 28, 2013.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to enter into the said contract and transferred KRW 850 million to the Nonindicted Company 5’s account on March 25, 2013, but immediately returned KRW 800 million and kept it for the victim Nonindicted Company 4, and around that time, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 embezzled KRW 800,000 for the purpose of paying interest on the stock security loan and paying KRW 280,000 to Defendant 1’s debt to Defendant 2.

6. Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act by Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7

(a) motive for crime;

Defendant 1, a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4, entered into a contract to transfer the right of management, etc. to Nonindicted Co. 35 on April 2012, and Nonindicted Co. 35 delivered 4 million shares out of his own shares to Nonindicted Co. 35 without fulfilling the obligation to report the change in ownership in order to assist Nonindicted Co. 3 to acquire the right of management, etc., and he subsequently provided a stock security loan from Nonindicted Co. 4 to Nonindicted Co. 35. Since the appraised value of the shares falls short of the collateral ratio due to the decline in the stock price of Nonindicted Co. 4, the stock price of Nonindicted Co. 4, which was disposed of as collateral on May 2012, Defendant 1, who was introduced through Nonindicted Co. 4, the same student, and Defendant 2, who was a M&A specialist, requested the Defendant 4 million shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 to be sold.

Defendant 2, Defendant 1, and Defendant 4 had the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 sell the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 at a low price, and had ordinary investors mistake that the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 might be sold at a low price by artificially preventing the price increase, or submitting many market manipulation orders that reduce the price so as to collect the shares in bulk at low costs by inducing a low price decline, thereby inducing ordinary investors to sell the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 at a low price, and by using them to gather the shares of Nonindicted Company 4.

(b) Public relations and allocation of roles;

Defendant 1: (a) on May 2012, 206, when requesting Defendant 2 to sell shares to Defendant 2; (b) six (36) accounts raised through Nonindicted 36; (c) 50,000 won of the shares held in the name of KRW 5.2 billion; (d) KRW 5,785 million of the closing price of May 24, 2012; (e) KRW 5,70,000; (e) KRW 75,000 of the shares issued by Defendant 2; and (e) Defendant 4 prepared an office to sell and sell shares in the name of Defendant 37,00,00,000, in order to sell and purchase shares; and (e) Defendant 2 prepared an office to sell shares in the name of Defendant 4,000,000,000 won or more; and (e) submitted an order to sell and sell shares in the name of Defendant 3,570,000 won or more; and (e) Defendant 2, 4, 75,05.

C. Specific criminal facts

No one shall mislead any person to cause a misunderstanding that the trading of listed securities or exchange-traded derivatives is booming, or make another person make a false representation in trading such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to mislead another person into making a wrong judgment, and no one shall trade such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to cause another person to do so, or entrust, or entrust, trading such securities or exchange-traded derivatives with an intention to attract another person to trade such securities or exchange-traded derivatives.

According to the above successive public offering, from around 08:53:50 on June 8, 2012 to 09:53:09 on the same day, the Defendants purchased 177,969 shares of Nonindicted Company 4 from the office in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong Branch using the said nine borrowed account. On that day, the share price commencing at KRW 1,155 on that day was increased by up to KRW 1,265 on June 8, 2012.

위와 같이 주가가 상승하자, 피고인들은 공모하여 주가를 하락시키기 위하여 2012. 6. 8. 10:14:46경 피고인 7 명의의 ♤♤증권계좌(계좌번호 1 생략)를 이용하여, 공소외 4 회사의 주식이 현재가 1,250원, 매도1호가 1,250원, 매도1호가 잔량 11,567주, 매수1호가 1,235원, 매수1호가 잔량 3,914주인 상태에서 위 직전가보다 40원이 낮고, 매수1호가 가격보다 25원이 낮은 1,210원에 10,000주의 매도주문을 제출하여 같은 날 서울 영등포구 여의도동 33에 있는 한국거래소에서 위 10,000주의 매매가 모두 체결되게 하였다.

In addition, the Defendants conspired to submit an order for selling stocks of Nonindicted Co. 4, a listed corporation, through an account in the name of 11, including Defendant 7, from June 5, 2012 to June 20, 2012, for the purpose of inducing the trading of the stocks of Nonindicted Co. 4, a listed corporation, to enter into a trade contract, 16 times a week over 16,265,196, and submitted an order for selling low-price 174,145 weeks over 106, such as written in the list of crimes (6), and submitted an order for selling 6,639,93 weeks over 165,200, 169, 299, 197, 209, 197, 2009, 197, 197, 205, 197, 297, 297, 300,000 share shares as indicated in the list of crimes.

【Paragraph 1 of this Article】

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 11

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against Nonindicted 23

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 38

1. Investigation report (related to violation of duty to report on large-scale possession);

1. Data on the investigation and processing of unfair trading of the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 (Nonindicted 23 and Nonindicted 39) and accompanying documents, Defendant 10’s answer, Defendant 10’s relation to the payment of funds for exercising preemptive rights, details and flow of accounts for subscription to shares of 5.6 million Won of the Company’s stocks, the flow of funds related to preemptive rights, debentures and convertible bonds (Defendant 14), and the disclosure of the report on the status of holding stocks held in bulk on October 1, 2010

【Paragraph 2 of this Article】

1. The defendant 8's partial statement

1. The legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 2

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 17

1. A statement of consignment account transactions, details of transactions at the time of purchase, details of sales tax transactions, securities accounts in Nonindicted 11, securities accounts in Nonindicted 40, a trading ledger in Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 41 (transaction and balance, balance of balance - Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 41), a transaction performance certificate (Nonindicted 42), a transaction performance statement (Nonindicted 17), and a statement of securities transactions in Nonindicted 15

【Paragraph 3 of this Article】

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 44, and Nonindicted 45

1. An investigation report (report on the attachment of details of transactions by new banks of non-indicted 4 companies - deposit of KRW 200 million from Non-indicted 46 on February 22, 2012)

1. The statement of Nonindicted 47 and Nonindicted 48

1. Copy of the report on material facts of Nonindicted Company 4, the report on the external institution’s appraisal (non-indicted 64), the decision to acquire shares and investment certificates of Nonindicted Company 4, the auditor for the fiscal year 2012 (non-indicted 65 accounting corporation), one copy of the audit report of Nonindicted Company 33, the copy of the corporate register of Nonindicted Company 34, BW and CB-related shares flow (Defendant 1), the flow of the use of the △△△△△△△△ shares acquisition fund of Nonindicted Company 4, the public notice of the △△△△△△△△ Group 400, 1 copy of the receipts, 200, 1 copy of the △△△△△△△△△△ Group 20, 201, 1, 300,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000).

【Paragraph 4 of this Article】

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement

1. An investigation report (in relation to the violation of duty to disclose shares in the account of the defendant 1's bank account), investigation report (in relation to the violation of duty to report on large volume keeping);

【paragraph 5 of this Article】

1. Partial statement of the defendant 1 and 2

1. Defendant 4, Nonindicted 52, and Nonindicted 53’s legal statement

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 50, Nonindicted 54, and Nonindicted 55

1. A copy of the register of Nonindicted Company 4, a report on material facts, a copy of Nonindicted Company 4’s financial flow, a printed copy of the electronic publication system, a publication related to the inducement of investment in △△ (public announcement, related thereto, etc. on December 31, 2012, and correction public announcement, etc. on January 3, 2013), a criminal investigation report (the result of tracking the accounts of KRW 800 million in relation to Nonindicted Company 5’s Embezzlement), and a copy of a copy of the draft joint management agreement.

【Paragraph 6 of the market】

1. The defendant 1, the defendant 2, and the defendant 5's partial statement and the legal statement of the defendant 6

1. Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 7, and Nonindicted 53’s legal statement

1. An interrogation protocol of Defendants 5 and 6 by the prosecution

1. The prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 20

1. An investigation report (Attachment to the details of a violation of duty to disclose shares in the account held by the defendant 1 in quantity collection), an investigation report (related to a violation of duty to report on large quantity keeping), and an investigation report (report on the results of tracing the account relating to KRW 500 million

1. Up to nine daily settlement reports in nine borrowed-name accounts, nine borrowed-name account transaction analysis documents, and on May 14, 2012 press data and BW and CB stock flow (Defendant 1);

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

Investigation Report (Attachment, etc. of the suspended sentence against Defendant 1, 2014Gohap533), Investigation Report (Attachment of Defendant 3 Criminal Power Decision, etc.) (Attachment of Defendant 3 Criminal Power Decision, etc.)

Defendant 1: Article 445 subparag. 20, Article 147(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”); Article 443(1)5, and Article 176(2)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”); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 1176(2)2; hereinafter “former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”); Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 46 subparag. 31 of the former Capital Markets Act; Article 173(1) 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”); Article 45(1) of the former Criminal Act

Defendant 2: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 355(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the crime of embezzlement related to the non-indicted 5 company), Article 43(1)4 and 5 of the former Capital Markets Act, Article 176(1)1, 2, 3, and 176(2)1 of the former Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the crime of manipulation of market price, comprehensive penalty, and choice of imprisonment)

Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 7: Articles 443(1)4 and 5, 176(1)1, 2, 3, and 176(2)1 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a comprehensive sentence of imprisonment, with labor)

Defendant 5 and Defendant 6: Article 43(1)4 and 5 of the former Capital Markets Act, Article 176(1)1, 2, 3, and 176(2)1 of the same Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a)

Defendant 8: Article 443(1)5 of the former Capital Markets Act, Article 176(2)2 of the same Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (with regard to the spread of a rumor of stock price manipulation, collectively, the choice of imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 3: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) related to the Acquisition of △△△ which has the largest punishment and criminal administration)

Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of the above two crimes to the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) related to Nonindicted Co. 5 with heavy punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 2: Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following factors, the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 5 and Defendant 6: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion

Defendant 1, either directly or through Defendant 8, did not make a statement to the other party indicated in the list of crimes in attached Form 2, including Nonindicted 2, etc. (hereinafter “Nonindicted 2, etc.”) (hereinafter “Nonindicted 2, etc.”) to the effect that “the share price is posted by conducting operations.”

B. Defendant 8’s assertion

Defendant 8: (a) around the time and time indicated in the attached Table 1 List of Crimes (1), the following facts were revealed: (b) Defendant 8 introduced Defendant 1 to the branch, or delivered Defendant 1’s oral plan to the branch after hearing the horses, such as the fact that the investor is aware of or there is a plan to take over △△△, etc.; (c) however, there is no fact that Defendant 8 spreads that the share price is changed due to the operation of the operating force. Moreover, Defendant 8 is not a joint principal offender to the extent that Defendant 1’s oral statement was delivered, but is not notified to many and unspecified persons

C. Determination

The following facts are acknowledged based on the foregoing evidence: (a) Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, and Nonindicted 17 stated that Nonindicted 2 had the same contents as criminal facts from Defendant 1 and Defendant 8 at the date and time indicated in this court and investigation agency; (b) Defendant 1 had a 5.6 million share price from △△△△ Bank at the time, and there was a possibility of significant benefit by selling the new shares to be issued at the time of the rise of the price; (c) Defendant 8 received a request from Nonindicted 1 to acquire the shares from Nonindicted 200, for the trading volume of the said shares without any particular financial benefit; and (d) Defendant 1 did not appear to have continuously solicited purchase of the shares from Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 2 to the extent that there was no change in the trading volume from 80,000 won when the shares of Nonindicted 1 were traded.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) related to the voluntary use of the acquisition price by Defendant 1 (Article 3 of the Criminal Act)

A. Defendant 1’s assertion

The facts constituting the crime in the judgment are recognized to have been stored at KRW 1.5 billion and used KRW 1.5 billion. However, the reasons for keeping KRW 1.5 billion are not returned from Nonindicted 12 because the acquisition price of △△△ was reduced, but are provided by Defendant 10 who promised to raise funds for the operation of Nonindicted 4, as a performance security. Therefore, the above KRW 1.5 billion is not kept by the Defendant for Nonindicted 4, and thus, the crime of embezzlement against Nonindicted 4 is not established.

B. Note 21) Facts of recognition

According to the above-mentioned evidence, the following facts are acknowledged:

1) On October 20, 201, the purpose of △△△△ was the construction work, remuneration, etc. related to the former and the company located in Saudi Arabia, which was established on October 20, 201. On January 11, 2011, Nonindicted Co. 33 concluded a contract for the construction of telecommunications network with the telecommunications company located in Saudi Arabia for the construction of telecommunications network (hereinafter “private-purpose construction”). Nonindicted Co. 33 held 600 shares (60%) and Nonindicted Co. 34 (Nonindicted Co. 34) held the remainder of 40 shares (40%) and held the remainder of 22 shares.

2) On July 201, when Nonindicted 3’s representative director, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 56, and Defendant 4, etc. were engaged in attracting funds against domestic large enterprises for the construction of sporady, they received a written intent to participate in the business from spokes, and consulted around July 201, and there was a position that spokes will take the responsibility of receiving technical assistance rather than raising funds and Defendant 23). Of that, Nonindicted 12 and Defendant 4 got 10.

3) around October 201, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 57, and Defendant 10 were entitled to purchase the shares and management rights of Nonindicted Company 4 from Defendant 1 for KRW 17 billion under the title of “Agreement related to Preferential Negotiations”. Defendant 1, Nonindicted 57, and Defendant 10 purchased the shares and management rights of Nonindicted Company 4 from Defendant 1. By December 20, 2011, the term “a separate agreement for acquisition of management rights by December 20, 201,” and “a separate agreement for acquisition of management rights” was the title of “a contract and an investment agreement for the acquisition of management rights. immediately after the conclusion of the investment agreement, Defendant 1 issued the small-sum convertible bonds with KRW 1 billion, and Nonindicted 57 and Defendant 10 used the said funds in the form of convertible bonds with KRW 1 billion in the payment of convertible bonds, and Defendant 1 transferred 2.8 billion at the time of signing the agreement with Nonindicted Company 57 and Defendant 10 100 billion won with Defendant 14 billion.”

4) On December 4, 2011, Nonindicted Co. 3 agreed to transfer 60% of the shares in △△△ to Nonindicted Co. 3 at KRW 3.2 billion (the contract amount, KRW 300 million in part, KRW 300 million in part, and KRW 2.6 billion in balance). On the same day, Nonindicted Co. 34 agreed to transfer 40% of the shares in △△△ to Nonindicted Co. 3 at KRW 80 million (the contract amount, KRW 100 million in part, KRW 100 million in part, and KRW 600 million in balance). Nonindicted Co. 3 paid the balance to Nonindicted Co. 3 and Nonindicted Co. 34 on December 6, 2011 in total, KRW 40 million in part, KRW 400 million in part, KRW 300 million in part, and KRW 300 million in part, KRW 360 million in part, December 16, 2011. Nonindicted Co. 336.

5) On December 8, 2011, Defendant 1 and Defendant 10 decided to purchase KRW 51 billion equity and take over the management right of △△△△. Defendant 10 shall exercise a set of KRW 2.8 billion until December 15, 201, and Nonindicted Company 4 shall invest KRW 1.6 billion in Nonindicted Company 3 when concluding a contract for the acquisition of △△△ shares with Nonindicted Company 3 as of the date on which they exercise a set of contracts with Nonindicted Company 3. Defendant 10 may engage in private equity increase of KRW 2 billion and KRW 1.6 billion out of funds raised through such contracts shall be invested in △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ KRW 1.

6) On December 16, 2011, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 concluded an agreement with Nonindicted Co. 3 to purchase KRW 5.1 billion with the right to manage △△△ shares (5.1%) as the title “written understanding on the acquisition of shares and management rights.” Nonindicted Co. 4 concluded a contract with Nonindicted Co. 3 to purchase KRW 5.1 billion with the right to manage △△△△ shares. Nonindicted Co. 4 paid KRW 1 billion to Nonindicted Co. 3 at the same time as the written understanding of understanding of understanding, and if the outcome of the appraisal of △△△△△ was reduced to KRW 5.1 billion with the acquisition amount, Nonindicted Co. 3 shall return the performance bond. If Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 3 concluded a share purchase contract with Nonindicted Co. 4 and △△△△△△△△△△, Nonindicted Co. 4 concluded a contract with Nonindicted Co. 3 to pay KRW 4.1 billion to Nonindicted Co. 3, 2011, and Nonindicted Co. 4 paid KRW 36.4 billion.

7) On January 5, 2012, Defendant 1 concluded a contract with Defendant 10 to transfer Nonindicted Company 23.67% of the shares and the right of management of Nonindicted Company 4 to Defendant 10 for KRW 17 billion.

8) On January 9, 2012, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 1 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Company 12 to “the acquisition of shares and management rights” with Nonindicted Company 3 to acquire KRW 510 billion for the purchase price of △△△ shares and KRW 5.1 billion. The down payment and KRW 1 billion for the first intermediate payment shall be appropriated as the performance guarantee paid in accordance with the existing understanding angle, and Nonindicted Company 4 shall pay to Nonindicted Company 3 KRW 2.6 billion for the second intermediate payment until January 9, 2012, and KRW 1.5 billion for the remainder of KRW 1.6 billion until January 31, 2012. At the same time, Nonindicted Company 3 concluded a contract with Nonindicted Company 510 shares and KRW 1.6 billion for the transfer of management rights from Nonindicted Company 4’s intermediate payment and KRW 1.6 billion for the remainder of KRW 1.4 billion for the purchase price of shares through an agreement with Nonindicted Company 3’s 14.5 billion for the acquisition of management rights.13 billion.

9) On January 31, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 4 paid KRW 1.5 billion to Nonindicted Co. 3. On the same day, Nonindicted Co. 3 concluded a loan agreement to lend KRW 1.5 billion to Defendant 10 until February 29, 2012, and remitted KRW 1.5 billion to Defendant 10’s account. The said KRW 1.5 billion was issued as a check on the same day and delivered to Defendant 1).

10) On October 17, 2012, Defendant 10 sent a document to Nonindicted Co. 4, 2012, stating that “Defendant 1 paid KRW 5.1 billion to Nonindicted Co. 3 even though the acquisition price of △△△△△ shares in Nonindicted Co. 4 was 3.6 billion, but was returned KRW 1.5 billion and used at will.” On November 16, 2012, Defendant 10 sent to Nonindicted Co. 4 a document stating that “Nonindicted Co. 4 requested Nonindicted Co. 4 as a shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 4 to file a lawsuit claiming compensation of KRW 1.5 billion against Defendant 1, and, in the event of nonperformance, he is expected to file a shareholder representative lawsuit.”

11) On December 17, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 3 sent to Defendant 10 a document stating that “Defendant 10 was appointed as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 34 because he/she held the documents to appoint Nonindicted Co. 34 directors, and thus, he/she would restore the documents to its original state and urge Defendant 10 to repay the loan amounting to KRW 1.5 billion against Defendant 10.”

C. Determination

In light of the aforementioned facts and the aforementioned evidence, Defendant 1: (a) planned to acquire △△△ shares through Nonindicted Company 10,000,000,000,000,000 won was paid to Nonindicted Company 10,000,000,000 won; (b) if Nonindicted Company 1 and Nonindicted Company 4 did not receive KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 10,000,00,00,00,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,00,00,00.

Therefore, Defendant 1 and his defense counsel are not accepted.

3. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) related to Nonindicted Co. 5 (Article 5 of the Criminal Act)

A. Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant 1

Defendant 1 did not have received a return of KRW 800 million from Nonindicted Co. 5.

2) Defendant 2

Defendant 1’s instruction received KRW 80 million from Nonindicted 6’s operator Nonindicted 5 Company and delivered it to Defendant 1. The fact that the above KRW 800 million was the price for the total sales contract for tin rice manufacturing device. around that time, Defendant 1 was paid KRW 300 million that he borrowed from Defendant 1.

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the above-mentioned evidences, the following facts are acknowledged:

1) On February 22, 2013, Nonindicted Co. 4 initially decided to issue 8.6 million shares to Nonindicted Co. 22, 2013, which was intended to issue 8.6 million shares to Nonindicted Co. 19, which was revised to issue 6.88,00 shares to Nonindicted Co. 19 operated by Defendant 1, and Nonindicted Co. 19 paid the said new shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 19 on February 22, 2013. However, in the process, Defendant 1, on February 22, 2013, lent 7.7 million shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 to Nonindicted Co. 5 as collateral, and paid the said new shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 19 under the name of Nonindicted Co. 19.

2) From March 20, 2013, Defendant 2’s account deposited KRW 300 million in Nonindicted Company 19, and on the same day, Nonindicted Company 19 deposited KRW 280 million in Nonindicted Company 4’s account from Nonindicted Company 38). On March 21, 2013, Nonindicted Company 4 announced that Nonindicted Company 51% of the equity interest in Nonindicted Company 19 transferred KRW 2.8 billion to Nonindicted Company 2.8 billion and announced that Nonindicted Company 4 received down payment KRW 280 million.

3) On March 25, 2013, Nonindicted Co. 4 agreed to pay KRW 1.35 billion to Nonindicted Co. 4 on March 25, 2013, as the title of “the Nationwide Product Supply Contract” with Nonindicted Co. 5, which was the title of “Immediate rice manufacturing equipment, etc.”, the sales payment of KRW 350 million to Nonindicted Co. 4 on March 25, 2013, which was the contract date, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million to Nonindicted Co. 4 on March 25, 2013 (Provided, That the written contract includes “i.e., payment after confirmation of KRW 300”), the balance 1.35 billion to be paid on June 28, 2013. In addition, Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 5 agreed to pay KRW 34,350 billion to Nonindicted Co. 4’s share price calculated as the unit price of Nonindicted Co. 5’s 43.34 billion.5 billion.

4) On March 25, 2013, Nonindicted 50, an employee of Nonindicted 4 Company 50,000 won, after obtaining the approval of the representative director on March 25, 2013, reported to Defendant 1, and remitted Nonindicted 5 Company KRW 850 million to Nonindicted 5 Company as advance payment. On the same day, Nonindicted 52 and Nonindicted 54’s employees of Nonindicted 4 Company 52 as well as Nonindicted 54 as a bank, and Nonindicted 54 as a check withdrawn KRW 850,00,000 from Nonindicted 5 Company’s account in accordance with Nonindicted 6’s order, and then, Nonindicted 52 delivered to Defendant 2 the sum of KRW 80,000,000 to Nonindicted 52, and Nonindicted 52 delivered the sum of KRW 50,000 to Defendant 2.

5) On March 29, 2013, Nonindicted Co. 4, as an internal director of Nonindicted Co. 4, Nonindicted Co. 58 (Punishment 6), and Nonindicted Co. 59, as an outside director, was a new registration of appointment.

6) As a result of tracking the check for KRW 850 million, Defendant 2’s KRW 350 million was confirmed to have been used by Nonindicted 6, and KRW 230 million by the above bondholder Nonindicted 55, and Nonindicted 43,000 won was found to have been used by the foregoing bondholder, and the place of use of KRW 230 million was not revealed.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 conspired to recognize the fact that he embezzled KRW 800 million of the capital of Nonindicted Company 4, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

① Defendant 1 stated that the investigative agency entered into a contract to transfer the management right of Nonindicted Company 4 with Nonindicted Company 6, which was introduced by Defendant 2 in early 2013, and Defendant 2 also introduced Nonindicted Company 6 to Defendant 1 by introducing Nonindicted Company 6. By that time, Defendant 2 had been providing Defendant 1 with consulting on the sale of the management right of Nonindicted Company 4. In addition, Defendant 2 entered into an agreement to purchase Nonindicted Company 4’s stocks at a price more than twice the market price; Nonindicted Company 6’s type of Nonindicted Company 58 taken office as a director of Nonindicted Company 4 on March 29, 2013; Nonindicted Company 5 was paid KRW 850,000,000 to Nonindicted Company 4; Nonindicted Company 5 appears to have been able to use the management right of Nonindicted Company 500,000,000,000 won under the contract; and Defendant 2 appears to have been able to have received the management right of Nonindicted Company 500,000.

② Although Defendant 1 asserts that there was no return of KRW 80 million, Defendant 1 was used for the repayment of the loan to Defendant 2 (it is difficult to view that Defendant 2 deposited KRW 350 million in Nonindicted Company 19 without Defendant 1’s involvement and deposited KRW 280 million in Nonindicted Company 4 again without Defendant 1’s participation, and it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 first invested his funds for the success of the sale consulting, the above amount appears to have been lent from Defendant 2), and as a result of the check tracking, at least 230 million won was paid to Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 55, a bondholder who borrowed the money for the capital increase of Nonindicted Company 19, and the possibility that Nonindicted Company 4’s funds would not be disbursed without Defendant 1’s approval. In light of the fact that Defendant 1 conspiredd and filled in this part of the crime of embezzlement.

③ Defendant 4’s statement is reversed several times from the investigative agency to this court, and its credibility is low. However, in light of other evidence, the statement that Defendant 2 was partially involved in the process of executing a check after returning KRW 80 million from Nonindicted 53, and that Nonindicted 53 was given to Nonindicted 6 by receiving KRW 100 million from Nonindicted 53, it appears that the statement was true. Nonindicted 53 received KRW 4-500,000 from Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 and gave interest on bonds to Nonindicted 55, and the remaining KRW 100,000 was given to Defendant 4 to Nonindicted 6, and it appears that it was difficult for Defendant 2 to acknowledge that Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 4 were Defendant 50,000,000 won for Defendant 2 to receive KRW 50,000,000,000,000 from Nonindicted 5 and Defendant 2, and that it was difficult for Defendant 2 to receive KRW 500,000,00.

4. Defendant 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7’s violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act with respect to manipulation of market prices (Article 6 of the crime committed in the market)

A. Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant 1

Defendant 1: (a) sold the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 as collateral; (b) sold them by an opposite trade; and (c) demanded Defendant 4 to return the shares held by Defendant 4 to the original state; and (d) there was no conspiracy for manipulation of market prices.

2) Defendant 2

Defendant 2, at Defendant 1’s request, provided consultation on the improvement of the financial structure and the sale of management rights of Nonindicted Company 4 at the end of June, 2012, but there is no fact that Defendant 1 received orders from Defendant 2 to manipulate the market price: Provided, That if Defendant 3, etc. seeks advice on the sale of Nonindicted Company 4’s stocks, the fact that he/she expressed his/her opinion.

3) Defendant 5

Although there was a fact that the non-indicted 4 paid an order to purchase the shares of the non-indicted 4 for about three to four days upon the request of the defendant 3, there was no fact that there was a conspiracy to manipulate the market price with other defendants.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the aforementioned evidence and witness's testimony.

1) Defendant 1, who decided to acquire Nonindicted Company 4 through Defendant 4 on April 2012, 2012, issued 4 million shares of Nonindicted Company 4 as real and KRW 5.2 billion to Nonindicted Company 35. However, around May 2012, Defendant 1, who borrowed money from Defendant 4 as security, was aware that he/she disposed of the said shares. Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 4 to purchase 4 million shares again.

2) From May 24, 2012 to May 25, 2012, the 500,000 shares of Nonindicted Company 4 held by Defendant 1 were deposited into the securities account of Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 53, and the 500 million won of the check issued from Defendant 1’s bank account was deposited into the bank account of Nonindicted 60 on June 7, 2012. A considerable portion of the money deposited into Nonindicted 60’s account was used by Defendant 2.

3) Defendant 7 and Nonindicted 53 provided one of the securities accounts under one’s name at the end of May, 2012. Defendant 1 lent six securities accounts under the name of another person, and Defendant 4 also provided one of the securities accounts under the name of another person. After that, Defendant 7, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 traded Nonindicted Company 4’s shares using the funds of approximately KRW 4.7 billion deposited in the said account at the office established by Defendant 4 under the direction of Defendant 3 at the office established by Defendant 4, and finally purchased approximately KRW 1,220,00 won at the average purchase price.

C. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, it can be acknowledged that the Defendants conspired to submit the order of price manipulation in the process of purchasing approximately KRW 384,00 of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4, as stated in paragraph (6) of the criminal facts in the judgment, and thus, the assertion by Defendants 1, 2, and 5 is rejected.

① Defendant 4’s statement is reversed several times at an investigative agency to this court, and its credibility is low. However, in light of other evidence, Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 1 to purchase the shares again, and asked Defendant 2 to purchase the shares. On May 2012, 2012, Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 arranged to purchase the shares. Defendant 2 agreed to receive payment from Defendant 1 to Defendant 5.2 billion won, and 5.0 million won and 5 million shares were transferred to Defendant 2 through Defendant 3 to Defendant 7, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6. Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 2 to purchase the shares through Defendant 3. The statement that Defendant 1 received the current status of purchase of shares.

② around May 2012, Defendant 3 stated that “Around May 2012, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 requested that Defendant 7 and Defendant 5 participate in the purchase of shares. Defendant 2 provided an order to purchase and sell shares from time to time to time, and the said order was delivered to Defendant 7, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6, and that the actual trading order was issued. Defendant 7 reported the purchase status to Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 20, at the expense of Defendant 1.” Nonindicted 53 lent the shares to Defendant 4 and Defendant 3 to the office to purchase shares, and then lent the shares to Defendant 7, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 purchased shares from Defendant 3, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, who instructed Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 to purchase shares on the day of the purchase.”

③ Defendant 7 received securities accounts worth KRW 4.7 billion from Nonindicted 20, Defendant 1’s visa, and purchased and sold the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 with Defendant 5 and Defendant 6’s instructions at the office established by Defendant 4 from the end of May 2012. Defendant 3 expressed that “The current status of purchase of shares was reported to Nonindicted 20 and Defendant 3. At that time, Nonindicted 20 and Defendant 3 told that the share price should take place.” At the investigative agency, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 were aware of the purchase of the shares in light of the following: (a) Defendant 5 and Defendant 6 were aware of the purchase of the shares from the date when the crime of embezzlement and breach of trust was announced; and (b) Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 were not aware of the purchase of the shares at the bar on June 5, 2012.

④ Defendant 5 stated at an investigative agency that “Around June 2012 upon Defendant 3’s request, Defendant 5 went to an office to assist in the purchase and sale of shares. At that time, Defendant 2 came to know, and Defendant 6 took place. In general, Defendant 3 instructed Defendant 2 to purchase orders as ordered by Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 also ordered Defendant 1 to purchase orders: Provided, That Defendant 2 did not have any orders.” Defendant 6 tried at the investigative agency to purchase and sell orders by introducing Defendant 5 to Defendant 3 for approximately two weeks at the office around June 2012. Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 3 to purchase and sell shares at that time. Nonindicted 53 also stated that Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 2 to sell shares to the same effect as Defendant 7 and Defendant 2 instructed Defendant 3 to sell shares.”

⑤ Although Defendant 1 was indicted on May 22, 2012 on the charge of embezzlement, and was aware of it on June 1, 2012, Defendant 1 appears to have delayed disclosure of the charge of embezzlement and breach of trust on June 5, 2012, and thus have consented to the purchase of the above Defendants’ low-price (Defendant 7 was ordered to prepare for embezzlement and breach of trust since public announcement was made by Defendant 3). Defendant 1 appears to have not trusted Defendant 4, as long as Defendant 4 lost her own shares due to Defendant 4’s failure to do so. Thus, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s statement that Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted 4 to restore the original state of shares by giving 5.2 billion won to Defendant 4, and that Nonindicted 4 or Nonindicted 6’s order to compensate for losses incurred from Defendant 1’s purchase and sale of shares was made for the purpose of Defendant 1’s own purchase and sale of shares. However, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s statement was made from Defendant 400 billion won.

6) As seen earlier, many Defendants and witnesses stated that the purchase of shares was carried out under Defendant 2’s initiative; Defendant 2 received KRW 500 million from Defendant 1, and KRW 500,000 of the money from Defendant 1, and most of them used (Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 1 paid it in order to compensate for losses suffered in the course of selling and selling Nonindicted Company 4’s shares; however, it is difficult to believe that Defendant 2 did not have any reason to compensate for losses. Rather, it is natural to view Defendant 2 as the consideration for the progress of the purchase of shares; Defendant 2’s successful completion of the purchase of shares; Defendant 2’s participation in the purchase of shares, the number of shares issued from the account of Nonindicted Company 60, which is the next account of Nonindicted Company 4; Defendant 2 appears to have taken office as a director or employee of Nonindicted Company 4; Defendant 2 also offered advice to Defendant 3 on the purchase of shares. In light of the fact that Defendant 2 responded to this part of the purchase of shares.

7) In the case of Defendant 5, the circumstances leading up to the purchase of Nonindicted Company 4’s shares may not be sufficiently known. However, in a case where a person with share investment experience, who traded Nonindicted Company 4’s shares with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s instructions, he would have been able to know the extent that, if he traded Nonindicted Company 4’s shares with large amount of funds, the share price fluctuations due to the order of the Defendants would have been caused by the Defendants, and at least Defendant 5 would have been able to recognize the willful negligence of the market price manipulation and the intention of joint processing. Thus, Defendant 5 may also be recognized as having conspired to commit

Defendant 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years nor more than forty-five years;

Defendant 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than twenty years;

Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years.

Defendant 5 and Defendant 6: A fine not exceeding KRW 500 million.

2. Scope of each recommended sentence based on the sentencing criteria (49).

A. Defendant 2

1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement)

[Determination of Punishment] Embezzlement and Breach of Trust, and Type 3 (not less than KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion)

[Special Sentencings] Reductions - If punishment is not granted or a significant damage is recovered.

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than three years

2) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

[Determination of Punishment] Securities and Financial Crime Group, Securities Crime, Infringement of Fairness in the Capital Market, Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million)

[Special Convictd Persons] None

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year and six months;

3) Criteria for handling multiple crimes

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than six months but not more than three years and nine months.

B. Defendants 4 and 7

[Determination of Punishment] Securities and Financial Crime Group, Securities Crime, Infringement of Fairness in the Capital Market, Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million)

[Special Convictd Persons] None

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year and six months;

C. Defendant 8

[Determination of Punishment] Securities and Financial Crime Group, Securities Crime, Infringement of Fairness in the Capital Market, Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million)

[Special Convictd Persons] None

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year and six months;

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the Defendants, in collusion with other Defendants in the process of promoting the sale of the management right of Nonindicted Co. 4, thereby impairing the company’s fairness and transparency in the capital market by embezzlement of Nonindicted Co. 4’s funds, spreading a rumor about Nonindicted Co. 4’s stocks, and making market manipulation. The crime of this case is not good. Defendant 2 led to the manipulation of market at Defendant 1’s request, and Defendant 8 actively participated in the crime of spreading a rumor more actively than Defendant 1.

However, the fact that Nonindicted Co. 4, the victim of the embezzlement crime, did not want the punishment of Defendant 1, and the fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 seem to have not been significantly gained personal gain through the embezzlement crime, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 7, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 appear to have little degree of participation in the market price manipulation and that the personal gain, as a result, is unlikely to exist, is considered as favorable to the Defendants. Furthermore, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the sentencing guidelines as set forth in the argument of the instant case, such as circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered.

A. This part of the facts charged

1) Circumstances and motive of the commission of the crime

Defendant 1’s financial structure and financial standing of Nonindicted Company 4, which most of the franchise business sales have deteriorated due to a decrease in overall franchise business profitability, led to Defendant 10, who had the intention to acquire Nonindicted Company 4 from Defendant 4, Defendant 1, a partner of Nonindicted Company 1, around September 201 to October 201, to sell to a third party the management right, etc. of Nonindicted Company 4, and was introduced.

Defendant 1 received a proposal from Defendant 4 and Defendant 10 to accept the shares of △△△ in aggregate amounting to KRW 1.10 billion in the construction cost from Saudi Arabia, but refused to accept it on the ground that there is no funds. In other words, Defendant 4 and Defendant 10 knew that there is a set that Nonindicted Company 4 issued a set of funds, and Defendant 10, who received the set of funds, received the shares after acquiring the set of funds, and take over the shares and take over the shares, and participate in the capital increase, etc. In this context, Defendant 4 and Defendant 1 approved Defendant 10 in order to sell the management rights of Nonindicted Company 4.

Defendant 1, as indicated in the facts of the crime No. 2 of the judgment, spreads a rumor of the fact that Defendant 1 directly or through Defendant 8 raises the share price of Nonindicted Company 4 by operating its large shareholders, and on the other hand, Defendant 1 was willing to acquire profits by disposing of shares acquired through a warranty event (at least 500 won) if the share price of Nonindicted Company 4 increases due to the acquisition of △△ shares, and Defendant 1 was willing to acquire profits by purchasing the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 by inducing the purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 in the manner of informing the undisclosed information that “the Nonindicted Company 4 will bring about a large amount of profits when entering the construction business of Saudi Arabia by acquiring the shares of △△△△△△△△ and by soliciting them to purchase the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 and holding the shares of Nonindicted Company 4.” In addition, Defendant 1 was willing to acquire management rights and shares of Nonindicted Company 4 to Defendant 10.

Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 10 agreed that Defendant 1 and Nonindicted Company 4 shall take over the shares of △△△△ on October 201 to November 201, but the funds to be used for the acquisition of △△△△△ was to be raised by exercising the amount of KRW 5.6 million for the 3rd bonds with warrant issued by Nonindicted Company 4 on September 3, 201 and the face value amount of KRW 2.8 billion, which were held by Defendant 1.

According to the above agreement, Defendant 1 provided a set of KRW 5.6 billion, which was held in the name of Nonindicted 23, and Defendant 10 raised the total of KRW 1.6 billion from five persons, such as Nonindicted 14, etc., who are the birth. Defendant 4 raised the total of KRW 400 million from five persons, such as Nonindicted 27, etc., and Defendant 1 provided a total of KRW 2.8 billion for the acquisition price of △△△△△ equity, by means of raising the total of KRW 2.8 billion from five persons, such as Nonindicted 27, etc., and Defendant 1 provided a set of KRW 2.8 billion for the acquisition price of △△△△ equity.

2) Specific facts charged

No executive or employee of a listed corporation, etc. who becomes aware of the material nonpublic information in connection with his/her duties shall use it for the trading of specific securities, etc. or any other transaction or allow any other person

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 4 around the end of November 201, negotiating the acquisition of △△△ shares with Defendant 4, Nonindicted Co. 4, and Defendant 10, the person scheduled to acquire △△△△△, who was running Nonindicted Co. 3’s business, along with Nonindicted Co. 12 and Nonindicted Co. 12, and became aware of the material nonpublic information regarding the acquisition of △△△△ shares in relation to the representative director’s duties.

At around 18:02 on January 10, 2012, Defendants 1, 4, and 10 conspired to disclose the fact that Nonindicted Co. 4 will take over the shares of △△△ on the electronic publication system of the Financial Supervisory Service (DATR), prior to disclosure of the said information, Defendant 10 acquired the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 34 billion won in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4’s third bonds with warrants issued by Nonindicted Co. 4 on September 3, 2010 (the face value is equivalent to KRW 2.8 billion; the exercise of KRW 5.4 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 34 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4, 500, and KRW 5.4 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 43 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 34 billion in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4, which was 500,000 won.

In addition, on December 9, 2011 and December 15, 2011, the Defendants conspiredd to acquire the aggregate of the funds raised by the Defendants, as shown in the attached list of crimes (4) at least twice, using the unit amount of KRW 1.99 billion in total of KRW 3.98 million in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4’s shares, thereby acquiring KRW 3.980,000 in total of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4’s shares. Defendant 1 used Nonindicted Co. 4’s material nonpublic information in connection with his duties to trade the shares of Nonindicted Co. 4 and thereby, acquired unjust enrichment of KRW 50,453,318,378 in total).

B. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant 1

The Defendants’ use of a warranty can not be deemed as material nonpublic information given that there was a situation in which the acquisition of △△ shares was not finalized at the time between December 9, 2011 and December 15, 2011 by the Defendants, and thus, it cannot be said that Defendant 1 was informed to Defendant 4. Since the △△△ takeover was led by Defendant 10 and Defendant 4, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 informed Defendant 4 thereof.

2) Defendant 10

Since Defendant 10’s exercise of the set so that Nonindicted Company 4 could pay the acquisition price for △△△, Defendant 10 did not have any awareness that Defendant 10 exercised the set by using material nonpublic information. In addition, since Defendant 10 and Defendant 1, who is the party related to the acquisition of △△△ shares, are fully known, the Defendants’ exercise of the set did not use material nonpublic information regulated by the Capital Markets Act.

C. Relevant legal principles

In general, material information generated inside a corporation is not completed as a matter of course, but concrete in the process of passing through a variety of stages, and it does not necessarily refer to the time when such information is generated objectively and clearly, and it is not necessarily the time when such information is generated, but if it is concrete to the extent that it has an important value in the decision making on the transaction of securities by comparing and evaluating the importance and possibility of occurrence of such information from a reasonable investor’s standpoint, it is generated (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1374, Jul. 9, 200).

"Information that may have a significant impact on investors' investment judgment" in Article 174(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act refers to the information that a reasonable investor considers to have an important value in a decision to trade in securities when compared and evaluating the importance and likelihood of occurrence of such information, and the fact that the price of the relevant securities may have a significant impact on ordinary investors if it is assumed that ordinary investors are generally aware of the fact (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do6219, Nov. 27, 2008; 205Do467, Jun. 29, 1995, etc.).

In order to become a subject matter of regulation for internal trading, the information must be an important information, and it shall be a non-public information that has not yet been made known to the general public. Until any information is disclosed according to the disclosure procedure by the company’s intent, it shall be deemed that it still belongs to the information subject to regulation for internal trading (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do467, Jun. 29, 1995, etc.). However, in a case where it is recognized that a party to a transaction has made a transaction while being well aware of the internal information of securities, which is the subject matter of transaction, the transaction cannot be deemed to have made use of the undisclosed important information (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006). Meanwhile, Article 174(1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act prohibits an act “use” of the material nonpublic information in trading or any other transaction with a specific securities, etc., to punish the act using the material nonpublic information.

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and records as seen in Article 2-2(b) of the judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendants used the material nonpublic information as indicated in the facts charged to trade or any other transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

① From October 201, Defendant 1 and Defendant 10 agreed to enter into the “Agreement on Investment” and that Defendant 10 shall pay the subscription price for small-value convertible bonds and execute a project related to △△-related business by exercising the set. After that, Defendant 1 and Defendant 10 specified a plan for raising funds and acquiring △△-related shares through the event of the set-up, etc., and accordingly, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 12 entered into an agreement on the acquisition of △△-△ shares. The information on the acquisition of △△△△ shares may be deemed simultaneously to have been embodied with the plan by the Defendants to procure △△△-related business with the set-off price.

② The Defendants’ use of a warranty in accordance with the plan for financing △△ acquisition cost is merely a subsequent implementation of the contents of the contract established at the time when the information on acquisition of △△ equities was created. However, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants possessed the information on the acquisition of △△ equities. However, if the Defendants did not exercise a warranty, the information on the acquisition of △△△ equities could not be realized. If a listed company were to engage in a new business, etc. with funds raised through a third party’s allocation of new shares, if the listed company knew of the details of the new business, etc., then the Defendants who received the allocation of new shares would have to punish all of them.

③ Defendant 10 and Defendant 4, who negotiated between Nonindicted Company 4, Defendant 1, and the trading parties, are well aware of the information that Nonindicted Company 4 acquired shares in △△△, and that they traded and exercised a warranty in such a situation, cannot be deemed to have used material nonpublic information. Even if an important information was not disclosed to ordinary investors, the transaction between the persons who know it is only transferring profit and loss. As such, it does not undermine the ordinary investor’s trust in the fairness of the securities exchange.

④ Information that Nonindicted Co. 4 acquires △△△ shares and enters into a new business is not information that Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 10 came to know of the information already created in the course of entering into a contract by negotiating with Nonindicted Co. 12, the representative of Nonindicted Co. 3, whose shares are held by △△△△△△, in connection with their duties. Defendant 1, etc. is a contracting party who entered into a contract on the acquisition of △△△ shares and the acquisition of management rights with Nonindicted Co.

⑤ Defendant 4 stated in this court that the aforementioned facts charged were led to the confession, but it appears to the purport to recognize the facts charged, and the reasons for the determination of innocence as above should be equally applied to Defendant 4.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2. The fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 9 violated the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Article 2014 high-level 271 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 204 high-level 308 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 5 of the Public Prosecution Act, respectively)

A. This part of the facts charged

1) Circumstances leading to the crime

On or after the end of November 2012, Defendant 1 and the representative director of Nonindicted Company 4 entered into an investment agreement of USD 30 million in total with a fund located in California (hereinafter “△△△”) under the pretext of raising funds necessary for △△△’s construction work two times on December 31, 2012 and around January 3, 2013 in order to be exempted from the said investment by designating Nonindicted Company 22 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 22”) as a purchaser of new shares in the name of Nonindicted Company 22 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 22”) in order to raise funds in the name of Nonindicted Company 4’s shares at least 50 million in the event that the financial standing of Nonindicted Company 4 aggravated, and that Nonindicted Company 4’s shares were likely to be designated as management issues in the future. In order to avoid such investment, Nonindicted Company 4’s shares were subject to an investment agreement of KRW 1360 million in the name of Nonindicted Company 22.3 billion in capital increase.

2) Specific facts charged

No one shall attempt to gain money or any interest in property by using an unfair means, scheme, or trick, a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact, or any other description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing another person from being misled, or by using a document or representation of a material fact, which contains a false description or representation of such material fact, or any other description or representation, in connection with the trading or other transaction of financial investment instruments, and shall disseminate a rumor, use a deceptive scheme, or assault or threaten another person with an intention to trade or make any other transaction in financial investment instruments or attempt to cause a fluctuation in the market price.

Defendant 1, around January 3, 2013, received a report from Defendant 9 before posting a public announcement of the second capital increase with respect to capital increase on January 3, 2013. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between △△ and Nonindicted Company 4, Nonindicted Company 1 was aware that Nonindicted Company 4 was to acquire “one billion US dollars (one billion US dollars) for the purpose of attracting investment,” and that Nonindicted Company 4 was to acquire “freely traded stocks (54 US dollars)” through an investment in △/U.S.

However, in fact, Nonindicted Co. 4 did not have any special means of financing, and Nonindicted Co. 22 was a company with the main purpose of developing and supplying software established at KRW 200,000 of its capital on December 6, 2010 for the purpose of developing and supplying software (the address of the corporation) and so there is no special fund for the construction business, etc., and thus, it cannot be able to pay approximately 1,000,000 dollars to △△ on behalf of Nonindicted Co. 4, and thus, the terms and conditions for the payment of the above agreed fee could not be met. As Nonindicted Co. 4 announced a public announcement of a decision to issue new stocks subject to protection for one year upon receiving an investment in △△△. Thus, it was in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract and there was no possibility that the said inducement of investment

On January 3, 2013, Defendant 1 and Defendant 9 came to know that there was a circumstance in which the said investment attraction was difficult to successful, and around January 9, 2013, Defendant 1 and Defendant 9 came to know of the fact that the said investment attraction was de facto difficult to implement the requirements on the part of △△ (an offer of KRW 140 billion) and, even though the said investment attraction was lacking due to the lack of the said investment attraction, publicly announced the public offering of capital worth KRW 90 million on January 7, 2013 without the correction, public announcement, cancellation, and public announcement of the said fact as if the said investment was effective, and completed the allocation of the total amount of subscription on the same day (Article 5).

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit an act of using an unfair means, scheme, or trick in connection with the trading or other transaction of financial investment instruments, and intended to gain money or other proprietary benefits by making a public announcement omitted an expression of material facts, and acquired unjust enrichment of KRW 90 million by using a deceptive scheme for the purpose of trading stocks.

B. Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant 1

The fact that Nonindicted Company 4 made a public announcement of the inducement of investment on January 3, 2013, and on January 7, 2013, the fact that it made a public announcement of public offering with capital increase on a general basis is recognized. However, Defendant 1 was led by Defendant 9, and Defendant 1 was unaware of the fact that the public announcement was false. Moreover, Defendant 1 did not have any fact that Defendant 1 made unjust enrichment of KRW 990 million.

2) Defendant 9

On January 7, 2013, the offering of new shares via public offering was planned from the time when Nonindicted Co. 4 borrowed bonds from a bonds company to raise operating funds. This is separate from the investment attraction case, and is not related to one another. As such, the offering of new shares via public offering of small amounts of money is possible immediately because it is not protected for one year, so it is possible to make a transaction immediately. In the process of Defendant 9’s offering of new shares through public offering, there was no fact that Defendant 9 used unlawful means, false public disclosure, or deceptive scheme during the process of offering new shares via public offering.

(c) Fact of recognition;

Review of the records of this case reveals the following facts.

1) On October 25, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 4 registered the appointment of a representative director, Defendant 9, Nonindicted 53, and Nonindicted 62, outside directors.

2) On November 30, 2012, Defendant 1 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 22 Company 21, and Nonindicted Co. 21, on condition that Nonindicted Co. 30 billion won or more would attract Nonindicted Co. 4, Defendant 1 would transfer the shares and management rights of Nonindicted Co. 4 to Nonindicted Co. 22 through Defendant 2 with approximately KRW 4 million out of the major shareholder share of KRW 8 million (to transfer the shares of Nonindicted Co. 22 and directly transfer the remainder of KRW 4 million to Nonindicted Co. 22).

3) On December 31, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 4 publicly announced that Nonindicted Co. 7. 7, 2012 KRW 7.2 million (the amount equivalent to KRW 3.6 billion) was to be allocated to Nonindicted Co. 22 by a third party, and stated that “this issue is the first portion of the investment agreement on the total amount of KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000) was to be distributed to Nonindicted Co. 4” (hereinafter “the first capital increase”). Moreover, Nonindicted Co. 4 publicly announced that Nonindicted Co. 2 was to be allocated to Nonindicted Co. 22 by means of a third party’s allocation of KRW 2,00,000 (the second capital increase).”

4) On January 2, 2013, Nonindicted Co. 4 made a public announcement of the change of the number of shares out of the first capital increase to 8.6 million shares (an amount equivalent to KRW 4.3 billion) and the change of major shareholders to Nonindicted Co. 22 after the capital increase. On January 15, 2013, the public announcement of the change of the payment date of shares from January 15, 2013 to January 31, 2013 was made again on January 31, 2013, and on February 26, 2013, Nonindicted Co. 4 changed the payment date of shares from January 31, 2013 to February 26, 2013 to 58). As for the second capital increase, Nonindicted Co. 4 changed the payment date of shares from January 31, 2013 to the public announcement of the first capital increase.

5) Meanwhile, on January 7, 2013, Non-Indicted Company 4 announced the public offering of new shares (number 1,99,99, number 99, number 99,500 of shares issued), and the scheduled date of subscription is from January 17, 2013 to January 18, 2013 (2 days), and the expected price of issuance is 500 won (the scheduled price of issuance is December 27, 2012; December 28, 2012; January 23, 2013; 30% of the average of the discounted rates of 30% per share price per 35,50 won per share price per 205,00,000 won per share price per 20,000 won per share price per 35,000 won per share price per 1,000,000 won per share price per 136,000,000 won per share price per 136.

6) On January 8, 2013, ○○○○ Investment Contract (SPPA) concluded with △△ Company (SPPA) on December 28, 2012 with Defendant 9 and Nonindicted 21 sent a document stating that “SPPA shall not be paid to Nonindicted Company 4, who is in a state of default, and if not, it shall be paid up to January 9, 2013, and if not, it shall cancel the SPPA.” On January 14, 2013 to the attorney-at-law of Nonindicted Company 4, the company sent the document stating that “The Non-Party 4 reaffirmed that the Non-Party 4 was in a state of default; the new shares underwriter under the SPPA is always not in a relationship with Nonindicted Company 22; the new shares purchaser under the SPPA should be immediately able to accept the new shares pursuant to the SPPA; and the company still paid up to 14 hours in the document stating that Nonindicted Company 14, etc. 2013.

7) On January 22, 2013, Nonindicted Co. 4 recorded a high subscription rate for capital increase with a public offering, and on January 24, 2013, KRW 99,99,500 of the share capital was deposited in the account of Nonindicted Co. 4’s share capital.

8) Of the first capital increase on February 22, 2013, Nonindicted Co. 4 announced that “the number of shares allocated from 8.6 million to 6.88,000 shares,” Nonindicted Co. 22 changed the number of shares allocated from February 26, 2013 to February 22, 2013, and that Nonindicted Co. 22 renounced the participation in the capital increase due to the circumstances in △△ (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 19”) was issued on February 22, 2013. Nonindicted Co. 19 was issued on February 22, 2013.

D. Determination

In full view of the above facts and the records of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above charges that the Defendants conspired to acquire unjust enrichment of KRW 990 million through the public offering of new shares via the investment plan on Doe Agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① Nonindicted Co. 4’s overseas investment contract amounting to USD 50,000,00 which was entered into with ○○○○○ Company cannot be readily concluded to be a false contract having no real effect. If Nonindicted Co. 4 or Nonindicted Co. 21 pays fees to ○○○○ at the time of January 7, 2013 when the general public offering was announced publicly, it would have been feasible.

② Defendant 9 stated that Nonindicted 21 made an internal agreement on the burden of fees, while Nonindicted 21 stated that there was no such agreement at the investigative agency, it is difficult to reject the credibility of Defendant 9’s statement that Nonindicted 21 made that Nonindicted 21 had made an internal agreement on the burden of fees. However, in light of the fact that Defendant 1 and Defendant 9 were Nonindicted 21, the subject who decided to successful overseas investment and to take over the management right of Nonindicted 4 was Nonindicted 21, and that Defendant 1 and Defendant 9 would have to bear the risk of paying the fee first on the Dol

③ Around January 14, 2013, ○○ sent to Nonindicted Company 4 a document stating that the shares to be assumed by ○○○ Company should be free trade shares. However, this can be seen as a response from the demand of Nonindicted Company 4 or Nonindicted 21 to modify the terms and conditions of the contract without paying the fees agreed upon by Nonindicted Company 4 or Nonindicted 21, and if the circumstances that are not free trade shares were an important part of the parties, it is difficult to explain the reason to send a document to urge the parties to fulfill their obligations on January 16, 2013. In full view of the fact that Nonindicted 21, among the terms and conditions of the agreement and the content of the agreement, it is difficult for Nonindicted 21 to explain to Defendant 9 that the free trade shares cannot be issued because of the demand to modify the terms and conditions of the agreement.

④ As seen above, the Defendants continued to hold consultations on the solicitation of investment with ○○ and Nonindicted Company 21. However, if the Defendants continued to send the documents to Nonindicted Company 4 and demanded payment of fees, it is difficult to conclude that the time when Nonindicted Company 1, Defendant 9, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted Company 21 came to know of such fact on January 24, 2013, as indicated in the facts charged, is difficult. Nonindicted 21 sent to Defendant 9 on January 23, 2013, “The term “Nonindicted Company 22 was valid, and was the beneficiary.” On January 27, 2013, Defendant 9 stated that Nonindicted Company 21 appears to have been de facto attracting investment, regardless of the Nonindicted Company 21’s speech at which Nonindicted Company 1, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted Company 21, etc. was gathered in the place of solicitation of investment.” Defendant 26 on January 27, 2013, Nonparty 21 and 36, 2013.

⑤ Even if the Defendants determined that it was difficult to attract investment on or before January 24, 2013, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants did not immediately correct or revoke the publication of attracting overseas investment with the aim of success in the public offering as publicly announced on January 7, 2013. The above public offering offering was agreed upon as a loan condition at the time Nonindicted Co. 4 borrowed KRW 1 billion from the bonds company (the statement of Nonindicted Co. 50 and Defendant 9), and Nonindicted Co. 4’s offering of 1 billion won was conducted on or before January 6, 2012, in light of the following: (a) Nonindicted Co. 4’s offering of new shares was conducted in accordance with a separate plan. Moreover, Nonindicted Co. 21 would have been at risk of being disadvantaged by the Korea Exchange if Nonindicted Co. 4 reversed the public announcement; and (b) Nonindicted Co. 21 would have continued to attract investment rather than by offering new shares.

④ Although the above facts charged stated that Nonindicted Co. 4 was exempted from designation of management issues by being able to avoid 50% of the capital erosion rate in the audit at the end of 2012 due to the success of public offering, capital increase with consideration and capital increase with consideration to Nonindicted Co. 19, the aforementioned facts charged are matters to be reflected in the financial statements in 2013, and thus, it is not related to the financial statements in 2012.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

3. The embezzlement of Defendant 1’s victim Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 2 (hereinafter “Defendant 1’s embezzlement”)

A. This part of the facts charged

1) Victim Nonindicted 11

On December 15, 2011, Defendant 1 transferred the amount equivalent to KRW 500,000 to the victim non-indicted 11 of the warrant bonds issued by the non-indicted 4 company to the victim, and exercised the preemptive right under the name of the victim by receiving KRW 250,000,000 from the victim as the price for exercising the warrant bonds. On January 5, 2012, Defendant 1 issued 50,000 shares of non-indicted 4 company at the Korea Securities Depository and kept them in custody for the victim.

피고인 1은 2012. 1. 중순경 피해자에게 주식 25만 주를 매각한 대금 명목으로 5억 원을 교부하고, 나머지 주식 25만 주를 피해자를 위하여 보관하던 중 2012. 5. 22.경 피고인의 차명계좌이던 공소외 61 명의의 ▷▷증권 계좌(계좌번호 2 생략)로 위 25만 주 시가 303,750,000원[250,000주×1,215원(2012. 5. 22. 종가)] 상당을 입고한 후 그 무렵 이를 임의로 처분하여 이를 횡령하였다.

2) Victim Nonindicted 2

On December 15, 2011, Defendant 1 transferred the amount equivalent to KRW 500,000 to the victim non-indicted 2 of the warrant bonds issued by the non-indicted 4 company to the victim and exercised the preemptive right under the name of the victim by receiving KRW 250,000,000 from the victim as the price for exercising the warrant bonds. On January 5, 2012, Defendant 1 issued 50,000 shares of non-indicted 4 company at the Korea Securities Depository and kept them in custody for the victim.

On January 21, 2012, Defendant 1 distributed KRW 221,00,00 to the victim for the purchase price of 130,000 shares as the price for the shares sold to Defendant 1 on or around January 21, 2012, and distributed KRW 168,750 to the victim for the shares of Nonindicted Company 4, and then embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 235,462,50 [Defendant 1] of the market price at around May 24, 2012, he/she arbitrarily provided Defendant 2 with the price manipulation for the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 on or around January 21, 2012, he/she kept the remainder of KRW 201,250 for the victim as the price for the shares sold to Defendant 2.

B. Summary of Defendant 1’s assertion

Upon introduction by Defendant 8, Defendant 1 entered into an oral agreement with Defendant 8, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 2 in order to receive the payment for the event of a set and distribute profits accrued from the disposal of Nonindicted Company 4’s new stocks to 5:5. As Defendant 1 completed the settlement by distributing the profits to Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 2 or the stocks of Nonindicted Company 4 in accordance with the said agreement, there was no fact that he embezzled Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2’s stocks as indicated in the facts charged.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 embezzled Nonindicted 11 and Nonindicted 2’s property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① In the initial prosecutorial office, Non-Indicted 2 had different knowledge of what the unit price was until the price was paid, and Defendant 8 had invested in Non-Indicted Company 4 with intent to punish ten times the money. On December 15, 2011, Non-Indicted 2 stated that the content of the unit price was signed in the contract, and it was thought that it was a formal document and signed and sealed it. There was no prior consultation on the power to exercise or dispose of the shares of Non-Indicted 4, and as a matter of course, Defendant 1 thought that it was to dispose of the shares to pay the money. There was no difference in the shares thereafter, and around January 21, 2012, around January 26, 2012, Non-Indicted 200 million won and around Non-Indicted Company 168,000 shares of Non-Indicted Company around 46, 208).

② At the initial prosecutorial office, Nonindicted 11 testified and made an investment in reliance on Defendant 8, although he had been well aware of what the set was at Defendant 8’s solicitation. Nonindicted 1 did not delegate his authority to exercise or dispose of the shares of Nonindicted Company 4 to Defendant 1, and thought that he would receive shares later. On December 15, 2011, there was no contact to give shares after paying the set price. On January 9, 2012, Nonindicted 11 contacted Nonindicted Company 4 through an employee of a securities company. Around the end of January 2012, Nonindicted 11 thought that he received KRW 500 million from Defendant 1’s disposal of shares and settled that he would take over shares at that time. Around 2013, he was subject to a gift tax investigation with respect to the acquisition of shares of Nonindicted Company 4 and phoned Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to affix his seal to Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 presented his tax amount.

③ Defendant 1 appears to have contacted with Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 11, rather than directly contacted with Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 11, and it appears doubtful whether Defendant 8 accurately delivered both parties’ intentions (where Defendant 8 continuously recommended several investors to make an investment in Nonindicted Company 4’s stocks or sets, it appears that the two parties would have been aware that they would have obtained economic benefits in any form, but the content would not be recorded). Nonindicted 2 knew that Nonindicted 11 would cause investment profits to be obtained, while Nonindicted 11 was aware that the two statements made in the same time are received, and thus, if Nonindicted 11 agreed to receive an investment return after paying the investment money, it would naturally be unnecessary to discuss the right to exercise or dispose of Nonindicted 4’s stocks, and Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 11 would have been subject to gift tax, it is difficult to conclude that Nonindicted 11 would have received some gift tax from Defendant 1’s embezzlement, and that there was no room to deem that Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 11 made a statement on the distribution of profits among Defendant 1.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment Omission]

Judge Cho Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-hoon

1) Nonindicted Co. 4 listed a franchise business (franchi) on the KOSDAQ on January 20, 1992 as its main business, and on July 11, 2000.

2) On October 3, 2010, Defendant 1 becomes the largest shareholder by acquiring 4,200,000 shares (18%) including the Defendant himself and his specially related persons, etc., and Defendant 1 continues to hold shares before and after acquiring 8,190,000 shares (32%) through capital increase with consideration, etc. until December 31, 2010 and continuously holding shares before and after 8,00,000 shares (32%).

Note 3) Article 1 of the Public Prosecution 2014 Gohap271

4) The names of Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31 (Investigation Records 2007-2008), Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 32.

Note 5) Paragraph 2 of the Public Prosecution 2014 Gohap271 and Paragraph 4 of the Public Prosecution 2014 Gohap308

(6) Defendant 1 and Defendant 8’s act began to purchase Nonindicted Company 4’s shares from September 7, 201 to September 7, 201. Nonindicted Company 4’s share price increased from September 27, 201 to KRW 2,770 on February 1, 2012; however, there was no special public announcement, news, and the internal change of circumstances within the company, etc., which might affect the stock price increase by the date of the public announcement by △△△△△ on January 10, 2012.

Note 7) Article 3-3(c) of the Public Prosecution Act No. 2014, 271

8) On December 4, 2011, Nonindicted Co. 3 entered into a contract with Nonindicted Co. 3 on the acquisition of 60% of the equity interest in △△△△ KRW 3.2 billion from Nonindicted Co. 33 to KRW 3.2 billion (value of KRW 5.00 million per share) on the contract date, and to pay the balance of KRW 300 million on December 16, 201, intermediate payment KRW 300 million on January 9, 201, and KRW 2.6 billion on January 9, 2012 (i.e.,, Nonindicted Co. 3’s payment of down payment only to Nonindicted Co. 33 at approximately two times the same equity interest paid to Nonindicted Co. 4 on 14 days, and the remaining equity interest is acquired from Nonindicted Co. 34 to KRW 40 billion (value of KRW 2.0 million per share).

Note 9) A total amount of assets as of December 31, 201 (20,749,852 Won) equal to 24.6% of that as of December 31, 2011.

10) After acquiring the shares of △△△ and the transfer of the management right with respect to Defendant 10 became unnecessary, Nonindicted Co. 4 did not take any measure with respect to the local construction work for about one year, and the stock value assessment report prepared by Nonindicted Co. 63 accounting corporation on March 21, 2013 has a negative impact on the financial structure of Nonindicted Co. 4 on the consolidated financial statements -2.5 billion won, as the capital erosion rate has increased, and Nonindicted Co. 4 was designated as the management issue on March 21, 2013, it was transferred to Nonindicted Co. 19, the representative of the Defendant, in KRW 2.8 billion on March 21, 2013 (in its content, KRW 2.3 billion on 14 billion on the contract itself), but until now the balance reaches the total amount of KRW 1.4 billion (in addition, KRW 1.4 billion on the losses incurred).

Note 11) Article 4 of the Public Prosecution 2014, 271

12) The Defendant’s failure to comply with the obligation to report on the provision of stock security loans, the counter-purchase and the collection of borrowed-name stocks, and falsely discloses that, while publishing quarterly reports (201.09) on November 15, 2012, a large shareholder’s quantity of stocks is at least eight million (8 million (8 million) stocks in real, while keeping them in custody.

Note 13) Paragraph 6 of the Public Prosecution 2014 Gohap271 and Paragraph 2 of the 2014 Gohap308

Note 14) Article 1 of the Public Prosecution 2014, 308

Note 15) The method of purchasing shares by submitting a majority of price manipulation orders that artificially drop stock prices so as to avoid decline or rise.

Note 16) The indictment contains “3,272,946 note” but appears to be a clerical error according to the attached list of crimes.

Note 17) The indictment contains “2,121,877 note” but appears to be a clerical error according to the attached list of crimes.

Note 18) The indictment contains “1,246,706 note”, but the indictment appears to be a clerical error according to the statements in the attached list of crimes (9).

The 19) The above clerical error seems to be due to the fact that not the total amount of the charged facts but the total amount of the order quantity was written.

Note 20) Investigative Records 1923 pages (hereinafter referred to as "in the absence of special reference, referring to the investigative records of the case No. 2014 high-scale 308)

Note 21) The facts and determination of this part of the lower judgment are related to “the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act concerning the acquisition of △△△ by Defendants 1, 4, and 10” among the acquitted portion.

Note 22) 557, 414 of investigation records

Note 23) Investigation Records 4227 to 4258

Note 24) Investigation Records 3431~339

Note 25) Investigation Records 1714 to 1769

Note 26) Investigation Records 557, 4137-4162

Note 27) Investigation Records 340-3443

Note 28) Investigation Records 862, 2440, 4164-4166

Note 29) Investigation Records 3448-3449

Note 30) Investigation Records 4167 to 4171

Note 31) Investigation Records 862, 2440, 3177 pages

Note 32) Investigation Records 862-864, 4186-418

Note 33) Investigation Records 1487~1493

Note 34) Investigation Record 431 to 4332

Note 35) Investigation Records 141, 2147-2148

Note 36) Investigation Records 2162 pages

Note 37) Increase No. 12

Note 38) Investigative records 865 pages

Note 39) Investigative records 581

Note 40) Investigation Records 1501 to 1506

Note 41) Investigative records 3945

Note 42) Investigative records 360 pages

Note 43) Investigative records 5366 pages

Note 44) Recordings for Non-Indicted 53 of the Witness 9

Note 45) Investigative Records 1737 pages

Note 46) Investigative records 5363 pages

Note 47) Investigative records 5398

Note 48) Investigative Records 2219, No. 11-5

Note 49) As Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 constitute concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing criteria do not apply.

Note 50) The share price of Nonindicted Company 4 increased by approximately 10 times from the lowest price of KRW 288 to February 1, 2012, which is the period for the suspicion of nonpublic use, from the highest price of KRW 2,770 on October 5, 2011, but the Defendants acquired Nonindicted Company 4’s shares at KRW 650 per share (the face value of KRW 500 and the unit price of KRW 150), and the amount of unjust enrichment of the shares not sold or released until that time since the stock price fell after January 10, 2012, since the date of the public announcement as of January 10, 201, the class price of KRW 2,075, which is the first highest price established after the public announcement, shall be deemed to be the selling unit price. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23508, Jan. 10, 2012>

Note 51) Although the facts charged against Defendant 1 and the facts charged against Defendant 10 and Defendant 4 are somewhat different, the reasons for the judgment of innocence are as follows.

Note 52) From October 25, 2012 to October 25, 2012, work as representative director.

53) The share price of Nonindicted Company 4 was increased by approximately 31% from the closing price base 477 on December 28, 2012 immediately before the first subscription for new shares as of December 31, 2012 to the closing price base 696 on January 4, 2013, immediately after the second subscription for new shares issued as of December 28, 2012, and maintained 500 Won first as of January 24, 2013, while maintaining 500 Won first as of January 9, 2013, it was KRW 570 won on the subscription date of small-sum subscription for new shares issued as of February 4, 2013, and thereafter increased by up to KRW 1,095 on March 20, 2013.

Note 54) In light of the purport of the contract, it shall be interpreted that immediately traded in the market and investing in shares in a state in which no limitation is available.

Note 55) Nonindicted Co. 4 maintained the publication as to whether the overseas investment of this case was effective even after the overseas investment of this case was failed to correct or revoke it, even though it did not publicly announce the failure of the overseas investment of this case. Defendant 1’s change the name of Nonindicted Co. 19, the representative Nonindicted Co. 1, to the name of Nonindicted Co. 19, and participated in KRW 34.4 billion (the funds raised as a collateral for major Co. 5) in February 22, 2013, through capital erosion rate of KRW 43.9% at the end of the last day of 2012, and the designation of management issues is exempted.

Note 56) Investigation Records 3292-3300, 5044-5047

Note 57) Investigation Records 1435-1440, 2764-2765, 2771-2773 pages

Note 58) Investigation Records 2134, 2141, 2144, 2768-2770, 2777-2779

Note 59) Investigation Records 2166, 2780-2782

Note 60) Investigation Records 2211-2213, 2774-2776

Note 61) Investigation Records 2783 to 2788

Note 62) Investigation Records 3304 to 3315

Note 63) Investigation Records 141, 2147-2148

Note 64) Investigative records 2162

Note 65) No. 2 of the capital increase

Note 66) No. 3 of the capital increase

Note 67) Investigative records 2479

Note 68) “2014 Gohap271” Investigation Records 1069-1070 pages

Note 69) 1072-1075, 1282 of the Investigation Records of 2014, 271