2. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000 for a violation of the Public Official Election Act as to the defendant.

3. When the defendant does not pay the above fine for a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act as stated in the judgment, the period of 25,000,000 won shall be converted into one day, and when the above fine for a violation of the Public Official Election Act as stated in the judgment is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period converted into one day.

4. The number of days of detention before the sentence of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment with prison labor for each violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.

5. An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines shall be issued.

6. The charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is acquitted.

Nonindicted Co. 1 was established on May 24, 200 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling electronic equipment and then listed on KOSDAQ on June 30, 2006. As of December 31, 2007, sales amount is KRW 90.5 billion, capital amount is KRW 8 billion, net income is KRW 1.35 billion, and net income is KRW 1.35 billion.

The Defendant owns 10.42% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in his own name, and owns 85% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 23, which controls Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares in his own name while holding 37.04% of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1.

On March 26, 2008, the Defendant registered with the National Election Commission No. 6 in the order of candidates for proportional representative National Assembly members, and elected to proportional representative National Assembly members on April 9, 2008, which was implemented on April 9, 2008.

1. Fraudulent transactions;

Around November 2006, the Defendant came to know of the fact that there was a dead mine that has not been developed in Uzbekistan when the Defendant visited the Republic of Korea in order to determine whether to accept as a public corporation subject to the sale of Uzbekistan. By using this, Nonindicted Co. 1 spreads false information as if he had been implementing the overseas resources development project with a strong investment value, thereby increasing the price. Accordingly, upon the increase in the price of stocks, the Defendant realized profits by selling borrowed stocks under the name of Nonindicted Co. 1’s employees, etc., which were owned by the Defendant, in order of the ordinary shareholders to get profits by selling the borrowed stocks in the name of the Defendant, such as the employees of Nonindicted Co. 1’s employees, etc., in the following order. On the other hand, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the ordinary shareholders, who may know of the fact of selling the borrowed stocks of the Defendant, were aware of the overseas resources development project, and caused the stock price increase by purchasing them.

(a) Dissemination of false facts;

No person shall intentionally disseminate any false market price or false facts or other rumor or use a deceptive scheme for the purpose of gaining unjust benefits in connection with the sale and purchase or other trading of securities.

(1) Facts

(A) There was no accurate verification of the store quantity and the net level of Uzbekistan mine.

Around January 2007, the term "Jagin mine status data" of the Uzbekistan Resource Committee secured by the Defendant was not confirmed as the subject, method, etc. of the investigation for 20 years, and even according to the data, the store quantity of "Gaginium (SiO2) net 9% or more, which is worthy of development, was limited to approximately 80,00 tons because it is possible to be processed as "Meginium container" among approximately 10,000 tons of estimated store quantity in the 8 location of the Pagin mine.

In conducting a sample survey for the mining development project, it is necessary to analyze a large number of sampling ingredients extracted from several points in the mine without permission, but the defendant requested the non-indicted 13, who operated the project at the local site in Uzbekistan on January 2007 and requested the Korea Institute of Geological Resources to analyze the composition of only one sampling sample collected at one of the eight of the above mines. The result of the test was that the level of 9.37% of the grix of the grites was 9.37%, but the result of the test alone was that the grix of approximately 10 million tons in the mine was not enough to 99% or more.

(B) The price of the Company shall be 15 U.S. dollars per ton and the highest level shall not exceed 30 U.S. dollars per ton.

Normally, the prices of ordinary ordinary ordinarys are within 15 U.S. dollars per ton on the basis of 98-99% per ton of net, and it is merely 25-30 U.S. dollars per ton of the highest level of 99% or more of nearby Kazakhstans, as the defendant's arbitrary prediction, and even if the total store value per ton of 10 million tons is the highest level of 9% or more as the defendant's arbitrary prediction, the total store value does not exceed 30 million won, and where the net value is converted into the company price of 98% or 99%, 1.5 billion U.S. dollars 2).

Since the price per ton is the value of minerals as the goods the extraction of which is completed, if the Defendant Company deducts all expenses necessary for the extraction, such as personnel expenses, even if the above mine is developed, the actual profit resulting from the development project is much smaller than the above price.

(C) Ordinary minerals are rare minerals, and there is little possibility of realizing or price increase.

As minerals which form a substantial part of the earth's surface of the earth (the domestic ordinary store's quantity is estimated to be 1.2 billion tons, the regular store's quantity shall be estimated to be 6.5 billion tons), and the high-level net shop's quantity above 99% is also high-level net store's quantity above all over the world, there was no particular price fluctuation during the recent years, and there is little possibility that the price may rise due to the shortage of the supply.

Only Polio-mixed (Si net 9.999% or more) which is the last stage of the processing process ? . This is limited to the increase in the supply of semiconductors, such as the requirement for two years only to the factory facilities and the demand for high level of technology, which are the kind of semiconductors that are used as raw materials for solar power generation batteries, at the final stage of the processing process. On the other hand, the demand for solar heat generation has increased rapidly.

“Pool Con” is a high-value product, but a production of approximately 72,00 tons is expected as of the year 2008, and the estimated sales volume during the five years in the future do not exceed 200,000 tons per annum. Therefore, even if the demand for polyol Cons considerably increases, there is no particular impact on the relationship of supply and demand of company.

(D) There is little relevance between the “Securing of Malie mine” and the “spolym container manufacturing industry entry”.

In order to put company company into electricity and supply electricity of 8,00-12,000 kw for a ton of a ton of a to make a chemical reaction, "Mesaly container" was manufactured. On the other hand, while Mesaly container was inside and outside 15 per ton of a ship, there is a reasonable difference in the price as 1,000 price per ton of a ship.

The main container is an electricity charge with 50 to 60% of the manufacturing cost, and there is no need for big technical capabilities such as dust and environmental pollution problems in the manufacturing process. On the other hand, the manufacturing industry is not a high value-added industry because there is a low operating profit rate (the cost of a loan is used for electricity charges, transportation expenses, etc.).

On the other hand, substantial parts of "Mesium container" are used for other purposes, such as alzin refining, and only 6-7% of them are used as raw materials of "Posium container". The source technology for the manufacture of "Posium container (Si 9.999% or more)" has five companies all over the world, and only five companies have a high technical barriers, and technology gap between the latter and the latter companies need to be punished for three years. The level of production facilities such as semiconductor factories are required. Even on the premise that the actual processing technology reaches a considerable level, at least 30 billion won of initial investment can be installed, and the initial investment funds can be increased if considering the cost necessary for securing technology. Even if technology and funds are secured, at least two years have elapsed since construction period is constructed.

While a large-scale financing and technical capacity should be invested as above, “polym container” is a high-value product with a value-added value of at least 100,000,000 per ton, and it is merely about 0.03% of the manufacturing cost of “polym container” (in the case where the price of “polym container” is calculated as at least 30% per ton), and ultimately, it does not have any special meaning to secure company physician in the manufacture of polypolym container.

(E) It is difficult to deem that a person has an intention or ability to promote the business of poly-mixed manufacturing business.

The Defendant, while going through a public announcement of the MOU’s understanding letter on the instant mine development projects and a public relations interview at several times, concluded a “MOU” on the premise that this contract was concluded with ○○ Bank, ○○ Capital, and the said mine development proposal, and followed several experts (such as the Geo Resource Research Institute, University, etc.) related to solar heat development by one head of the new project team, and had them gather general data on the current status, such as a thesis, and there was no other reason to implement the polygraphing project.

The purpose of this MOU is to examine whether financial assistance is provided through a preliminary examination on the premise that the above MOU had no agreement on the scale, timing, etc. of financial assistance, and that the content of this agreement would be premised on the conclusion of this agreement.

In particular, there was no technology transfer and funding plan, such as what degree of expenses will be transferred in any way, how early factory construction funds will be prepared. Considering the store value of ordinary mines (70% level of ordinary store capacity) and net level, the market value of ordinary mines was not less than 1.5 billion. Considering mining costs, transportation costs, etc., the value was reduced further, and it was difficult to create an amount equivalent to 30 billion-50 billion-50 billion-50 billion-in capital based on such mining development projects.

If the defendant's plan is completed, it is practically impossible to complete the factory facilities within the above period in light of the fact that the defendant company did not perform the related business, such as manufacturing of actual containers, and that it was not easy to transfer technology because there were five companies holding original technology, and that transfer of technology was required for more than two years only to factory facilities on the premise that the technology has been equipped.

In the end, the Defendant was difficult to view that he had the ability to implement the business, such as intent to promote the manufacture business of polychemicals, financing and technology transfer, etc.

(F) On August 2007, the Defendant Company was not selected as a full-time mining development business operator from the Republic of Uzbekistan government.

In April 2007, the Republic of Korea concluded an MOU with the Uzbekistan Resources Committee (MOU). However, even after this contract, there existed procedures such as mineral exploration and joint ventures agreement, etc., and around August 2007, the Defendant’s non-indicted 1 Co., Ltd. was never selected as a regular business operator or a final business operator from the Republic of Uzbekistan government as of August 2007.

Rather, on August 2007, the early 2007: (a) the time when negotiations were conducted due to a large difference in opinions on the shares of the Joint Venture Co., Ltd. between the Uzbekistan Government and the Nonindicted Co. 1, and Nonindicted Co. 36 Co., Ltd.; and (b) the conclusion of this contract was still unclear; and (c) the progress of negotiations was no longer made at the conclusion stage of the above MOU, the Uzbekistan Government was able to cancel the above MOU on the ground that “Nonindicted Co. 1 was unable to participate in various meetings for the conclusion of this contract, and that part of the business was published to the press by entering into the confidentiality agreement.”

When the Committee on Resource Cooperation, which is a kind of diplomatic channel between the Republic of Korea and the Uzbekistan government, was determined to be held on November 2007, it was true that the Republic of Uzbekistan government included "the instant Regional Mining Development Project" as one of the agenda to be discussed at the Committee on Resource Cooperation on August 3, 2007, and Nonindicted 13 sent to the Defendant a copy of the documents of the Uzbekistan government related to the Resource Cooperation Committee at the Defendant's request, but the said "Committee on Resources Cooperation" was merely a discussion about various resources development-related agenda and was adopted as one of its agenda, and this contract was not planned or designated as a food business operator as a matter of course.

(G) On August 2007, it was difficult for a large enterprise to expect future demand for the tetragic containers or polysive containers, and there was no large enterprise to make an advance sale thereof.

In Uzbekistan on August 2007, Non-Indicted 13, which was promoted together with the Defendant of the instant Amateur Mining Development Project in Uzbekistan, tried to collect mineral samples and produce a prototype, but only if the net level of minerals is analyzed, it is not necessary to produce a prototype, and the production plan of a prototype was abandoned.

Around that time, there was no large enterprise to make an advance sale on the premise of the manufacture of Mesium container or polysium product, and it was true that some of the enterprises would have made an inquiry about investment-related issues to the Defendant, but there was no discussion about specific business plans.

Therefore, around August 2007, it was difficult to expect not only the timing and scale of manufacturing products, but also some of the companies in the future.

(2) The press reports and the spread of false facts in relation to this case’s Extraordinary Mining Development Project

around April 10, 2006, the Defendant contacted with the Chinese Newnets Committee on the news report on April 10, 2006, and “the multi-determined entity sculptures forms the cost of 80% from solar batteries, and in China, the metal board the net level of 98% is exported at the price of USD 1/km, and an overseas company exports the net level of the complaint to China at the price of USD 80-100/km by raising the net level of the complaint up to 999% until 9.99%, and then re-exports it to China at the price of USD 80-100/km” in the main text of the article. However, although the Defendant knew that the metal board referred to as “surgic container” means “surgic container,” the above “surgic surgic surgic surgic surgic surine” and “surgic surgic surgic surgic m.”

Accordingly, on April 25, 2007, the Defendant: (a) at the office of Nonindicted Incorporated Company 1, the Defendant confirmed on April 25, 2007, that “Isman is the raw materials of poly energy which is currently causing salvous phenomena all over the world; (b) it has a significant meaning to secure this mine, which is a significant resource of which accounts for 80% in solar energy projects; (c) there is a difference between kgg and 100,000 tons for each time; (d) according to the present data of the Uzbekistan Resources Committee, there was an intention of 10,000 tons or more so far; and (e) Nonindicted Company 1 confirmed that “Isn't request to the Korea Resources Research Institute for a net analysis of its sampling and that there was a net map of 99.36% per annum 1,000 per annum 1,000 per annum 1,000 per annum 708,000 per annum 9.7 billion per annum.”

In addition, through an interview on September 13, 2007, the Defendant made a report to the effect that “We shall be the raw materials of polysium, which are the raw materials of solar batteries. He&T was selected as the person who is the source of polysium in the solar batteries. He&T was selected as the person who is the source of polysium in April in the last four months from the Republic of Uzbekistan government. Since concluding an understanding angle (MOU) that can develop dead mines in April in the last four months, the Defendant obtained formal authorization only for a period of four months. If the plan is planned, it will be possible to enter (Posium Con) mass acid from 2010.”

As such, from February 27, 2007 to September 13, 2007, the Defendant made a continuous report on the contents of eight promotional media reports, such as the attached list I, through news reports, interview, etc. from February 27, 2007 to September 13, 207.

(3) misunderstanding of general shareholders due to the defendant's act of spreading false facts

As a result, Nonindicted Co. 1 had ordinary shareholders acquire the right to develop YGG in Uzbekistan with a value of at least 10 billion won, which led to a rapid increase in the investment value of Nonindicted Co. 1. Therefore, the purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 was made to mislead them as if they could obtain a large profit from the market price. As a result, on February 27, 2007, the commencement of KRW 3,880 per share of February 27, 2007, which was announced to the effect that “the person was selected as a regular business operator” through KRW 15,80 on August 17, 2007, which was the date of the public announcement of the conclusion of the MOU for Mining Development (Korean EconomicTV Ma), and the share price increase by at least KRW 89,700 on August 17, 207, which was made by the Defendant to prepare for the share price increase by at least 207% on August 17, 2007.

The Defendant’s aforementioned act of spreading false facts, which was merely 90 billion won as of 2007, and 1.3 billion won as of 1.3 billion won as of 2007, was also a company at the second level in the KOSDAQ market exceeding 1 trillion won in total.

(b) Cause of misunderstanding using false documents;

No person shall make a false representation concerning material facts in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities or make use of documents in which any fact required is omitted, thereby inducing misunderstanding of other persons, thereby inducing any person to gain money or other benefits which has property value.

(1) Facts

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 피고인 전체 소유 주식 차명 명의인 2002년 2003년 2004년 2005년 (액면분할 시점) 2006. 3. (무상증자 및 상장 시점) 2007. 2. 27. (최초 허위사실 유포 시점) 2007. 3. 22.(무상증자 시점) 2007. 10. 10. (주식 매도 후) 상무 공소외 4 1,670 1,810 5,470 54,700 105,355 105,355 210,710 210,710 부장 공소외 18 2,190 2,190 2,190 21,900 42,181 22,920 45,840 0 부장 공소외 19 - - 4,860 48,600 93,607 46,084 92,168 0 부장 공소외 20 - - 4,230 42,300 81,472 42,952 85,904 0 전무 공소외 22 - - - - - - - 0 (2007. 8. 1. 차명 주식 15,000주 취득, 10. 8. 매도) 노조위원장 공소외 21 - - - - - - 45,000 0 차명 주식 합계 3,860 4,000 16,750 167,500 322,615 217,311 479,622 210,710 피고인 명의 주식 80,000 80,000 80,000 800,000 1,540,846 1,540,846 3,081,692 1,681,692 총 합계 83,860 84,000 96,750 967,500 1,863,461 1,758,157 3,561,314 1,892,402

around 202, the Defendant lent the number of Nonindicted Co. 1’s regular director Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares to Nonindicted Co. 1’s account, and purchased 16,750 shares (5,000 shares per share) in the name of its employees from the time of 2004, such as the foregoing table, from the time of 16,750 shares (5,00 shares per share). The above number of shares increased to 167,50 shares due to the division of face value around 205, again to 32,615 shares through the capital increase without compensation on March 27, 2006. At the time of spreading the first false facts on February 27, 2007, the number of shares was 217,31 shares at the time of spreading the first false facts on March 22, 2007, changed to 479,62 shares at the time of gratuitous increase, 479,622 shares on March 22, 2007).

On the other hand, from around October 2001, the Defendant held 80,000 shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in his own name (5,000 shares per share). The above shares were held 80,000 shares due to the split at face value around October 5, 2005, and again, around March 2006, 1,540,846 shares through capital increase without compensation, 3,081,692 shares as of March 22, 2007, and 1,000 shares as of April 26, 2007, and 40,681,692 shares under the name of the Defendant by selling them to October 5, 207 and October 8, 2007, the Defendant held 1,681,692 shares by adding up the shares to the current name shares.

Nevertheless, on June 30, 2006, the Defendant reported only the shares held in the name of the Defendant at the time of listing on KOSDAQ by Nonindicted Co. 1, Ltd., and did not make any report on the shares held in the name of another person from that time.

(2) False labelling

On July 6, 2006, the Defendant submitted a “report on stocks owned by an executive officer or major shareholder” through the Financial Supervisory Service’s electronic publication system. On June 30, 2006, the Defendant, as seen above, did not include shares 322,615 in the name of another person as of June 30, 2006 but publicly announced as if he had shares 1,540,848.

In addition, on March 22, 2007, the Defendant allocated new shares 1,540,848 shares by the decision of free increase of capital by Nonindicted Company 1, and on March 26, 2007, the Defendant stated only 3,081,692 shares in its name in the shares owned by him/her while submitting the “report on the ownership of an executive officer or major shareholder” on the 26th of the same month, and stated false facts in the portion of “shared shares” in the number of shares owned by his/her employees (the increase after being allocated new shares by the decision of free increase of capital) omitted.

In addition, the Defendant sold a total of 283,912 shares of Non-Indicted Party 1 Co., Ltd. (1.76% of the total number of issued shares) holding five employees, including Non-Indicted Party 1 Co., Ltd. from February 27, 2007 to October 10 of the same year, such as selling a total of 129,50 shares from May 8, 2007 and 115,412 shares, and from September 18 to September 21 of the same year, the Defendant sold a total of 283,912 shares of Non-Indicted Party 1 Co., Ltd. (1.76% of the total number of issued shares) in total of 9,098,46,650 won, but did not carry out the “report on the status of owned shares.”

In addition, on October 5, 2007 and October 8, 2007, the Defendant did not enter the status of ownership and change of the borrowed stocks in the “report on the holding of stocks by executives and major shareholders” and “report on the holding of stocks, etc.,” even though all the remaining borrowed stocks, excluding 210,710 shares of the borrowed stocks in the above Nonindicted 4, from among the stocks held in the name of the Defendant until the sale of 40,000 shares under the name of the Defendant, were sold.

(c) Unjust gains from fraudulent illegal transactions;

The Defendant constantly spreads false facts as referred to in the above A and recognized the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 as the so-called “○○○○ meme,” which received each of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, thereby increasing the share price by 7,760 won per share on February 27, 2007 on the basis of closing price (i.e., before an increase of 10% on March 22, 2007, the actual value per share is 3,80 won per share if the shares value after the increase of free capital is considered to be 3,80 won per share) on October 9, 2007.

On the other hand, the Defendant continued to sell KRW 283,912 shares to KRW 9,098,446,650, such as the attached Table II, without reporting the status of the shares owned, in order to make it known that he/she was disposing of the shares held within the scope as shown in the above Section B(1) during the above period. However, if he/she knew of the above fact, he/she did not purchase the shares if he/she was aware of the general investors.

In addition, on October 5, 2007, the Defendant sold a total of KRW 400,000 shares in the name of the Defendant, including KRW 270,00 shares in the name of the Defendant for KRW 78,000,000, in total, for KRW 34,359,000 shares in the name of the Defendant for KRW 89,70 per share on August 1, 200, for KRW 270,000 in the name of the Defendant.

Therefore, the amount of profit earned by the defendant as a result of the fraudulent unfair trading in this case is as follows.

① The Defendant sold 400,00 shares under one’s name to KRW 34,359,00,000, and KRW 283,912 shares owned under one’s name to KRW 9,098,446,650, respectively. Ultimately, the Defendant sold 683,912 shares owned by the Defendant to KRW 43,457,446,650 in total, and the commission and transaction tax for such sale are KRW 255,494,320 in total.

② On the other hand, as of February 27, 2007, when the Defendant started to spread false facts, the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 was KRW 7,760 per share, which was 100 per share, and this was 200,000 when the Defendant converted 40,000 shares in the name of the Defendant, out of the shares sold by the Defendant, into the number of shares before capital increase without compensation, from among the shares sold by the Defendant, the share price of KRW 1,552,00,00 (20,000 shares x 7,760 won) at the time of the commencement of market price manipulation.

③ Meanwhile, around the beginning of March 2007, the Defendant purchased KRW 240,000 from Nonindicted 21 to KRW 240,000,000. On March 22, 2007, the Defendant purchased KRW 15,000 from March 22, 2007, 100, out of KRW 60,000, out of KRW 100,000, around 75,000, after Nonindicted 21 donated to Nonindicted 21 on March 22, 2007, only KRW 45,00, which is the remainder of KRW 75,00, KRW 240,000, KRW 75,000, and the Defendant purchased KRW 180,00 from Nonindicted 225,00, KRW 200, KRW 200 on August 1, 207.

Therefore, from among the borrowed stocks sold by the Defendant on February 27, 2007, the acquisition cost of Nonindicted 11,956 shares converted to the number of shares held by Nonindicted 18,19,20 shares, 223,912 shares, which were held since February 27, 2007, was 868,778,560 won (11,956 shares x 7,760 won) calculated according to the closing price on February 27, 2007. The acquisition cost of Nonindicted 21,22 shares, which was 60,000 shares, owned by the Defendant on March 22, 2007, was 420,000 shares, 11,956 shares converted to the number of shares held before the increase of shares, was 80,000 won (180,000,000 won + 2050,70808 won, 2008,7008 won shares).

④ Ultimately, the Defendant obtained 40,361,173,770 won [43,457,46,650 won (sale Price) - 2,840,778,560 won (Purchase Price) - 255,494,320 won (transaction cost, such as commission and transaction tax)] through transactions related to fraudulent transactions by spreading false facts and using false documents.

2. Violation of obligation to report in bulk;

A person who holds at least 5% of stocks of a KOSDAQ-listed corporation shall report the changes in the holding status and purpose of holding, and the holding ratio thereof to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Korea Securities Futures Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the “Exchange”) within 5 days from the date on which such changes are made, where such changes are made in excess of 1% of the total number of stocks

However, on July 5, 2006 through the electronic disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service, the Defendant filed a report on the holding of shares of Nonindicted Co. 23, the largest shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 1, through joint signature with Nonindicted Co. 23 and Nonindicted Co. 1, the Defendant at the time, prepared a false “report on the holding of shares, etc.” in which the entry of 322,615 shares in the name of executive officers and employees of Nonindicted Co. 4 and other Nonindicted Co.

From that time until October 15, 2007, the Defendant did not include the borrowed stocks owned by the Defendant at least seven times in total as shown in the attached Table III, and prepared a false report on the situation of possession of stocks, etc. at least seven times, and did not report the changes thereof to the Financial Supervisory Commission, etc.

3. Violation of reporting on the status of stocks owned;

Any officer or major stockholder of a KOSDAQ-listed corporation shall report to the Securities Futures Commission and the Exchange the status of holding the stocks of the relevant corporation owned on his own account regardless of in whose name the stocks are held, and if there is any change in the number of stocks held, the details thereof shall be reported to the Securities Futures Commission and the Exchange not later than the tenth day of

However, on July 6, 2006, the Defendant reported the ownership status of Nonindicted Co. 1 through the Financial Supervisory Service’s electronic disclosure system, and prepared a false “report on stocks owned by executives and major stockholders” omitted from the entry of 322,615 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4 and reported it to the Securities and Futures Commission, etc.

In addition, the Defendant reduced the number of shares on June 30, 2006, 48,521, 47, 782 shares on July 3, 2006, and 9,001 shares on January 16, 207, respectively. The increase of 45,00 shares on March 22, 2007, and 283,912 shares from May 8, 2007 to October 8 of the same year, as shown in the attached list II, were sold respectively, and thus, the Defendant did not report the change of the number of shares, and instead did not include the following shares in total nine times until November 10, 207 as listed in the attached list III, and did not make a report on the change of the number of shares owned by the Defendant or make a false report on the change of the number of shares owned by the Securities and Futures Commission.

4. Use of undisclosed information;

Any officer, employee or agent of the relevant corporation and any person who becomes aware of important information which is not open to the public in connection with the business of KOSDAQ-listed corporations in the course of performing his duties, and any person who receives such information from such corporation shall not use or have another person use such information in connection with sale and purchase or other transaction of securities issued by such corporation

However, following the listing of Nonindicted Co. 1, the Defendant decided on January 2007 to acquire Nonindicted Co. 1’s own stocks to manage the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1, 207, and received a report from Nonindicted Co. 4 to examine whether it is possible to acquire Nonindicted Co. 1’s own stocks by determining the intention of acquisition of Nonindicted Co. 1’s own stocks, and giving instructions to Nonindicted Co. 4.

In addition, on January 12, 2007, the Defendant ordered Non-Indicted 4 to purchase 30,000 shares of Non-Indicted 1 Co. 1’s stock through the securities delivery account (Account No. 3 omitted) in lieu of the name of Non-Indicted 24 Co. 1’s largest shareholder on the 10th day of the same month, which was prior to the second day of January 12, 2007, via the securities delivery account (Account No. 3 omitted) in lieu of the name of Non-Indicted 24, which was the second day of the Non-Indicted 1’s decision to acquire 30,000 shares of Non-Indicted 1’s stock (Account No. 3 omitted), and Non-Indicted 4 purchased 60,00 shares of Non-Indicted 1 Co. 1’s stock in compliance with the direction of the Defendant knowing

After that, Nonindicted Co. 1 made a public announcement on January 12, 2007 to the effect that “to acquire the treasury stocks of KRW 1 billion” was “to acquire the treasury stocks of KRW 1 billion.”

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 4, acquired unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 17,128,08 [the closing price of January 12, 2007, KRW 479,875,308 (the amount deducted from commission) - Acquisition price of KRW 462,746,50] by purchasing the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 by using undisclosed information related to the “decision on the acquisition of treasury stocks” of Nonindicted Company 1.

5. Violation of the Public Official Election Act;

No person shall publish or publish false facts about the place of birth, status, occupation, career, property, personality, act, conduct, organization to which he/she belongs, etc. of a candidate, his/her spouse, lineal ascendant or descendant, lineal descendant, career, etc., or sibling favorable to the candidate by means of a speech, broadcast, newspaper, communication, magazine, poster, propaganda document, or other means, or possess a propaganda document containing false facts for the purpose of distributing it.

From around December 2002, the Defendant held the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 with the borrowed name account in the name of executives and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, and held the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 as of December 31, 2007 as of December 31, 2007, KRW 210,710 (or equivalent to KRW 1,415,971,20) of the borrowed name shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4 and KRW 8,103,181,651 of the borrowed name shares sales amount, including KRW 9,519,152,851 of the borrowed name shares in the name of executives and employees.

On the other hand, as of December 31, 2007, the Defendant owned a total of KRW 50,221,040,000 in the name of the Defendant and his family members, including KRW 34,141,724,00.

Therefore, the property to be reported by the Defendant as of December 31, 2007 is equivalent to KRW 59,740,19,152,851, which is the sum of KRW 50,221,040,00,00 held in the name of the Defendant and his family and KRW 9,51,51, which is held in the borrowed account in the name of the executives and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1.

On March 26, 2008, the Defendant reported the property of the 18th National Election Commission to the 2-3rd National Election Commission, which was held in the name account in the name of executive officers and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, for the purpose of election, and submitted a false report on property of the 50,221,040,000 won by omitting the amount equivalent to KRW 9,519,152,851, which was held in the name of executive officers and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1, for the purpose of election. The Defendant had employees of the National Election Commission disclose the above false property of the Defendant on the Internet website around that time.

As a result, the Defendant, for the purpose of election, omitted an amount of KRW 9,519,152,851, which was held in the name of an officer or employee of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, and posted the Defendant’s property status at the Internet site of the National Election Commission, etc., thereby publicly announcing false facts about the Defendant’s property in favor of the Defendant, who

○ Partial statement of the defendant

○ Each protocol of examination of the accused for the preparation of the Prosecutor Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9

○ Nonindicted 20, 19, 18, 21, 25, 25, 4, 26, 27, 27, 28, 22, 29, 13, 30, 31 and 32 of the witness’s legal statement

○ Nonindicted 18 and 11, respectively, the second written statement of Nonindicted 18 and 11, and the fourth written statement of Nonindicted 4 in the preparation of the prosecutor.

○ Copy of the written answer to Nonindicted 33 and written confirmation of Nonindicted 34

○ In the investigation report [the share price trends by the date of Non-Indicted. 1’s shares in 2007, list of evidence 58 (the list of the remaining facts charged except for the violation of the Public Official Election Act; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph], investigation report (the attached list of evidence 173), investigation report (the attached list of the results of unfair trading and handling of the shares of Non-Indicted. 1’s shares, the attached list of evidence 187), investigation report (the attached list of Non-Indicted. 1’s newspaper articles, etc.), investigation report (the attached list of evidence 197), investigation report (the attached list of Non-Indicted. 1’s newspaper articles, etc.), investigation report (the report related to the analysis of ingredients of geological Resource Research Institute, the list of evidence 203), the attached list of understanding materials related to the development of Uzbekistan, the promotion schedule of projects, etc., the list of evidence 204, the investigative report (the attached list of evidence 208), the report related to the investigation report, the attached list of evidence 213(the evidence report).

○○ Decision on the Acquisition of Treasury Stocks (Evidence 18), Report on the Acquisition of Treasury Stocks (Evidence List 19), Audit Report (Evidence List 25), Non-Indicted 23 Stock Company (Evidence List 35), Certified Copy’s Register (Evidence List 39), Request for Financial Transaction Information (Evidence List 91), Request for Provision of Financial Transaction Information (New Securities Definite Branch, Madern Branch, Evidence List 91), Request for Provision of Financial Transaction Information (Evidence List 115), 129, Statement of Change in Name (Evidence List 129), Statement of Change in Named Stocks (Evidence List 130), Statement of Sale of Named Stocks (Evidence List 182), Report on the Status of Holding Stocks (Evidence List 184), Defendant’s e-mail (Evidence List 205-2).

○ The CDs in which the Korean EconomicTV News ( August 17, 2007) and Ethiopia Interview ( April 17, 2007) related to Nonindicted Co. 1 were stored.

2. Facts No. 5 of the decision (the part on violation of the Public Official Election Act);

○ Partial statement of the defendant

○ Each protocol of interrogation of the accused of the Prosecutor Nos. 1 and 9

○ Nonindicted 20, 19, 18, 21, 5, 4, and 22’s legal statement of the witness

○ Statement of Nonindicted 11 prepared by the Prosecutor

○ A written statement prepared by the Defendant (a list of evidence 120 and a list of evidence about facts charged in violation of the Public Official Election Act; hereinafter the same shall apply)

○ Investigation Report (Execution Report2 of Search and Seizure Warrant, Evidence List 48), Investigation Report (As of December 31, 2007, the status of the possession of the suspect’s borrowed property and the list of evidence), Investigation Report (as of December 31, 2007, the list of evidence 76), Investigation Report (as of the suspect’s National Assembly member’s receipt and

○ Details of the change in the name of the vehicle (Evidence List 21), details of the sale of the borrowed stocks by account in the name of the name of the vehicle (Evidence List 22), current status of the change in the ownership of the defendant by the defendant (Evidence List 60), details of the ownership and change in the name of the defendant (Evidence List 61), details of the ownership and change in the name of the defendant (Evidence List 67

Articles 207-2 (2) 1 and 188-2 (1) 2, 188-4 (4) 1 and 2, 214 (1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act (including the fraudulent unfair trading through the dissemination of false facts and the use of false statements), each of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8904 of March 14, 2008), Article 210 subparagraph 5, Article 188 (6) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8904 of March 14, 2008), each of the former (amended by Act No. 8863 of February 29, 2008), Article 210 subparagraph 5-2, Article 202-2 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8863 of Feb. 29, 2008), Article 207-2 (1) 1, Article 18-2 (1) of the Public Official Election Act

1. Selection of punishment;

○ The punishment for the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to fraudulent unfair trading shall be chosen and fined shall be imposed concurrently.

○ Selection of imprisonment for each violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the use of undisclosed information, violation of the duty to report stock ownership status, and violation of the duty to report stock holding.

○ Selection of a fine for a violation of the Public Official Election Act

1. Separation of concurrent crimes;

Article 18 (3) and 18 (1) 3 of the Public Official Election Act (Separately deliberate and decide on the violation of the Public Official Election Act and the violation of each Securities and Exchange Act)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment of Crimes against Securities and Exchange Act, and Punishment between Crimes of Violation of Each Securities and Exchange Act, and Punishment on False Unfair Trading, as prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Act)

1. Discretionary mitigation (as to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Dissemination of false information;

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) Among the articles listed in the annexed Table I, there are many articles that are articles articles that are articles that are articles that do not run by the defendant or articles that are different from the statement of the defendant.

(2) Each of the above articles is not false, but is false, and even if some of the contents are false, the defendant did not have any awareness about the falsity.

(3) The Defendant did not intentionally make the aforementioned articles reported in order to obtain unjust benefits.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the defendant's interview and contents of articles are consistent with the contents of the interview

According to the evidence mentioned above, articles Nos. 1 of the Attached Crime List I (the title of this paragraph is the sequence I of the crime list) are interviewed by the reporter in the phone with the defendant, and the remainder except for the article from securing the right to monopoly of mine development. The defendant also recognized that the contents of the statement of the defendant have been incorporated into articles; ② the article was made through Nonindicted 30 of the personal news list of new securities, and Nonindicted 30 came to know the same contents as that of the article; ③ the article Nos. 1 of this case was written by an interview with the defendant, and the article of this case was written by an interview with the defendant, and the article of this case was written by an interview with the article of this case, and the article of this case was written by an interview with the article of this case, and the article of this case was written by an interview with the article of this case, and the article of this case was written by an interview with the article of this case, and the article of this case was written by an interview with the article of this case, and the article of this case was written by an interview with the article of this case.

In addition, the above facts of recognition do not specifically dispute whether the defendant's articles Nos. 8 are consistent with the defendant's statement, and the defendant requested to delete the parts related to the ratio of joint ventures after the article Nos. 4 was reported, and the part related to the ratio of the joint ventures was deleted from the Internet bulletin. However, the article No. 4 did not raise any objection to the remaining parts of the article or other articles, and the contents are repeated to the same purport as the articles in the attached list No. 1 of the crime list of crimes that were published through interview with the defendant. In addition, each of the above articles is deemed to have been reported in accordance with the defendant's statement or intent.

(2) Whether false facts are false

(A) The prohibition of fraudulent unfair trading under Article 188-4 (4) of the Securities and Exchange Act is aimed at protecting individual investors' interests in securities trading and protecting investors' trust in the general securities market, thereby contributing to the development of the national economy. Thus, whether the securities market is an act related to trading, such as trading of securities, etc., or whether it is false or not to acquire unfair profits or economic profits shall be determined based on objective standards, comprehensively taking into account the status of the actor, the management status of the issuing company, the trend of the share price, and all the circumstances before and after such an act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do686, Nov. 14, 2003).

(B) According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant was paying attention to the development of ○○-mar mineral compounds around November 206, and the Defendant received 2 of 13 from Nonindicted Incorporated Co. 10 and received 19.37% of the raw material from 10 and that it was difficult for Nonindicted Co. 1 to confirm the volume and degree of 1’s own production of e-marbsium and 1’s own production and treatment of e-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-mar-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-marine-U.m.-U. 1, 207. The Defendant was not required to obtain from Nonindicted Co. 11 and 13 opinions on their respective research resources-m.

According to the above facts, the contents reported to the articles listed in the attached list I of crimes in the annexed list I are the facts that the objective facts are completely different from, or are grossly exaggerated about, the objective facts in the part, such as the size and degree of elevation of Sarie mine in Uzbekistan, the economic value of Pari mine, the confirmed acquisition of the status of the business operator in the Pari mine development, the economic relationship between Pari and Pariet, the possibility of the manufacture of Pariol Cons, and the timing of realizing profits, etc. Furthermore, the defendant, as a professional manager, has concentrated considerable attention on the development of Pari mine in terms of the diversification of the business for corporate survival as a professional manager, and the subsequent meri consium and the manufacture of Parisium consium. In light of the fact that the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 was much less than the company's performance, he actively changed the contents of the report to the journal's interview, etc., referring to the foreign press, and that the defendant was fully aware of the content of the report.

(3) Whether to obtain unjust benefits

According to this part of the evidence, the Defendant heard 7 shares from around 10 investors due to the non-indicted 1’s listing of 5 shares, and purchased shares from around 20,000 executives and employees for the purpose of raising their shares. On January 12, 2007, the Defendant agreed to pay 1 billion won in cash and 30% of the Defendant’s property as property division while maintaining only a formal relationship with his spouse, and the Defendant had no specific assets for the purpose of selling 70,000 shares from around 7, 207 to around 10,000 shares of 10,000 shares of the non-indicted 20,000 shares of the non-indicted 20,000 shares of the non-indicted 3’s real name and 7,000 shares shares of the non-indicted 1,000 shares of the non-indicted 3 company. The Defendant had no real name and 25,000 shares shares of the non-indicted 1 company.

In full view of the above facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had an objective of obtaining unjust benefits.

2. Use of a false document;

A. Summary of the assertion

(1) It is difficult to view the Defendant’s disposal of the borrowed stocks owned in the name of the executives and employees of Nonindicted Co. 1 Company, but did not enter them in the “report on the stocks owned by executives and major stockholders” as “material matters related to the transaction.”

(2) In order to establish the fraudulent fraudulent transaction caused by the use of a false document, causation between the use of document and the act causing misunderstanding to others is required. Whether it is a borrowed-name share is not likely to cause any misunderstanding to other investors as well as the purchaser of the shares. In addition, in light of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s holding of shares by Nonindicted Company 1 in the name of its executives and employees and selling them, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a criminal intent to make profits by taking out the borrowed-name shares after the increase in the share price.

B. Determination

(1) Whether it is an important matter relating to transaction

(A) The term "material fact" under Article 188-4 (4) of the Securities and Exchange Act means a fact that may have a significant impact on the property and management of the corporation in question, or on the fair trade in securities and the protection of investors, which may have an impact on investors' investment judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8652, Feb. 9, 2006).

(B) According to the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant submitted a report on the stock ownership of executives and major shareholders on July 6, 2006 and March 26, 2007, and submitted the “report on the stock ownership of executives and major shareholders” on June 30, 2006 and on March 22, 2007, the Defendant reported only the real name shares among the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1, which were held at the time of issuing new shares on March 22, 2007, and did not report the real name shares. Based on this, the Defendant did not make a report on the change in the status of the shares, even if he sold the borrowed shares held in the name of executives and employees as shown in the attached Table II, as seen above, and the Defendant’s explanation of the understanding concluded on April 19, 2007, and did not have any negative influence on the Defendant’s request for the sale of the shares under the name of the executives and employees of the Korea Stock Exchange.”

(2) As to causation and criminal intent

(A) Article 188-4 (4) 2 of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 5254, Jan. 13, 1997) changed the form of a crime of "the act of obtaining money or other benefits on property by inducing misunderstanding of another person by making false representation of any material fact or omitting any necessary fact" into the form of a crime of "the act of inducing misunderstanding of another person by making false representation of any material fact or making use of document with omission of any necessary fact to obtain money or other benefits on property," and as long as it uses false or fraudulent document with regard to material fact "in order to obtain money or other benefits on property by inducing misunderstanding of another person," the crime of the above Article is established immediately by its interpretation. Since the use of document does not require "the act of causing misunderstanding of another person or obtaining money or other benefits on property," it does not affect the establishment of a causal relationship between false or fraudulent act and the act of using another person (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4756, Apr. 26, 2006).

In addition, it is reasonable to interpret the unfair benefits under Article 188-4 (4) of the Securities and Exchange Act as a comprehensive concept including not only the individual and tangible economic interests of an actor due to the disposal of securities, but also the passive benefits such as the acquisition of management rights, the securing of control, and the increase of status within the company, and the passive benefits such as the avoidance of losses (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do686, Nov. 14, 2003, etc.). It is sufficient to interpret it as a comprehensive concept including not only the passive benefits such as the case of avoiding losses, but also the unrealistic future benefits (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do686, Nov. 14, 2003, etc.). The purpose of inducing misunderstanding another person to gain money or other economic benefits is not related to the existence or purpose of other purposes, but also it is sufficient that the degree of perception of that purpose is not required to be active or final recognition (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do606, Dec. 12,

(B) According to the evidence of this part, the Defendant: (a) provided information different from objective facts through a journalist interview or made an uncertain future business outlook, and (b) was publicly announced as if such a plan was immediately realized or such business was very valuable; (b) the Defendant submitted a report on the ownership of an officer or major shareholder on July 6, 2006 and March 26, 2007, and did not report the borrowed stocks held by the Defendant in the name of his executive officers or employees; (c) the investors were not aware of whether the Defendant owns the borrowed stocks or whether the stocks were sold; (d) the Defendant was unable to know whether the Defendant owns the borrowed stocks or whether the stocks were sold; and (e) the Defendant, from May 4, 2007 to October 5, 2008, prior to the sale of the Defendant’s real name stocks in the name of an executive officer or employee, the Defendant consented to the sale of the borrowed stocks under the name of the Defendant, including the annexed list II.

In full view of the above facts of recognition, the Defendant obtained profits from market price by selling borrowed stocks without being aware of the fact that the Defendant, who is a CEO and major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 1, holds and sells a considerable quantity of borrowed stocks by using “report on stocks owned by executives and major shareholders,” etc., in which the owner of Nonindicted Co. 1, who did not indicate the name stocks of the Defendant, after an interview of journalists, etc., was conducted. Thus, the Defendant’s above act using false documents was sufficient to cause misunderstanding of the general investors, and the Defendant was deemed to have the purpose of gaining profits from property by inducing misunderstanding of other persons.

3. Dissemination of false facts and use of false statements and the relationship between the increase of stock prices;

A. Summary of the assertion

After the Defendant’s interview news report, there was no significant change in the share price. The Plaintiff’s interview alone cannot bring about a sudden increase in the share price. The Defendant’s disposal of the Defendant’s name stocks cannot be a ground for independent increase in the share price. From March 2007 to August 2007 during the share price increase of Nonindicted Company 1’s stock price was the owner of solar energy at the same time as the resource test. Since the thereafter increase in the share price was a ground for a concentrated purchase by the members of the ○○ Investment Research Institute, which made Nonindicted Company 2 as the ○○ Investment Institute’s note, even if the use of false information and the use of false information is recognized, there was no causal relationship between such increase in share price of Nonindicted Company 1 and that of Nonindicted Company 1.

B. Determination

(1) The term "profit from a violation" under the proviso of Article 207-2 (1) and (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act refers to the profit from a transaction involved in the violation (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1256, Jun. 14, 2002). It does not necessarily mean that there is a direct causal relationship with the violation, but it constitutes the profit from a transaction involved in the violation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1628, Sept. 3, 2004).

(2) According to the above evidence, the Defendant distributed false information as indicated in the annexed list I from February 27, 2007 through an interview of 10 billion won to 20 billion won, and used false information as recorded in the annexed list I on July 6, 2006 and March 26, 2007, which was already submitted without including borrowed stocks. The articles indicated in the annexed list I contain sufficient contents to affect investors' investment judgment. Accordingly, the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 was 00 won and 100 won for 20 billion won for 10 billion won for 20 billion won for 10 billion won for 20.5 billion won for 20 billion won for 10 billion won for 200 billion won for 20 billion won for 200 billion won for 10 billion won for 200 billion won for 20 billion won for 100 billion won for 200 billion won for 20 billion won for 205 won for 20 billion won for 20.

(3) Furthermore, the record reveals that the rapid increase of the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1 from around September 2007 by Nonindicted Co. 2 had a significant impact on the investment power, including the members of the ○○ Investment Research Institute, operated by Nonindicted Co. 2. However, according to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that the investment decision and the investment recommendation on Nonindicted Co. 1, including Nonindicted Co. 2, etc., were directly attributable to the Defendant’s journal interview, etc. prior to the aforementioned investment decision and the investment recommendation on its members. Therefore, it is clear that the Defendant’s act of spreading the false information and the use of the false statement was significantly affected by the share price increase of Nonindicted Co. 1, and the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment due to the transaction involved in

[Supplementary Information Use Part]

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant did not directed the acquisition of shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 before determining whether to publicly announce the acquisition of shares, purchased shares to stabilize the share price of Nonindicted Co. 1, and held shares acquired in the name of Nonindicted Co. 23. The sales profits of shares acquired in the name of Nonindicted Co. 24 are still held, and since there was no personal gain by depositing the shares in Nonindicted Co. 1, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant used undisclosed information.

2. Determination

According to the aforementioned evidence, Nonindicted Co. 4, who received an order from the Defendant on January 12, 2007, to review the procedure, etc. for acquiring its own stocks from Nonindicted Co. 18, etc., and reported to the Defendant on his own after 2,3 days that he could acquire his own stocks, Nonindicted Co. 4 purchased 30,000 shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 24 that he had previously lent, and Nonindicted Co. 23 that he had been under his management on January 10, 207. The above purchase of shares was made in accordance with the Defendant’s order; Nonindicted Co. 1 stated on Jan. 12, 2007 that Nonindicted Co. 4 would have received a lower amount of KRW 129,032 shares to be acquired; Nonindicted Co. 1’s estimated amount of KRW 100,000 from Jan. 16, 207 to Apr. 25, 2007; and that Nonindicted Co. 138’s.

In full view of the above facts of recognition, it is evident that the Defendant purchased the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 24 and Nonindicted Co. 23 using important information not disclosed to the general public in the situation where the acquisition of shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 was decided or at least

【Violation of the Public Official Election Act】

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant had already expressed his/her intent to donate the borrowed-name shares and the sale price thereof to the employees, and was actually donated prior to the reporting of the property. As at the time of reporting the property, the Defendant did not have the perception that the borrowed-name property in the name of the officers and employees was owned by the Defendant.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was a candidate for an election of National Assembly members, not a candidate for an election of National Assembly members, but a candidate for proportional representation. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s possession of borrowed stocks in the name of its executives and employees, the background leading up to the sale of such stocks, and the fact that the Defendant was actually planned to reward the executives and employees as the sale price, and was actually donated later, the Defendant’s failure to enter the borrowed stocks in the report on the property of a candidate for election of public officials

2. Determination

A. Whether the defendant was aware of the existence of the borrowed name property

According to the evidence of this part, the defendant confirmed the registration documents, such as the report on the property of the candidate for the National Assembly member, which was prepared in advance with Nonindicted 37 and Nonindicted 11 directed and received to the Integrated Democratic Party on March 18, 2008, and the Integrated Democratic Party received the report en bloc with the National Election Commission on March 26, 2008. As of December 31, 2007, the above report on the property of the candidate for public office was omitted from the Defendant’s name property as indicated in Annex IV as of December 31, 2007. Meanwhile, the defendant told from May 2007 to the effect that the Defendant donated to the nominal owner if it is extremely high time with respect to the borrowed stocks under the name of the executives and employees, and delivered the passbook and the seal of the borrowed property managed by Nonindicted 4 to the executives and employees on March 25, 2008.

If so, even if there is room to view that the delivery of passbook and seal of the proceeds from the sale of borrowed stocks to the executives and employees on March 25, 2008 is a donation, it shall be deemed that the defendant who confirmed the report of the property of the candidate for public office and received the report from the political party on March 18, 2008, was aware that the above borrowed property was owned by the defendant as of December 31, 2007.

(b) Whether the purpose of election is to be made or not, and whether the defendant is favorable;

(1) Article 250(1) of the Public Official Election Act provides that “for the purpose of being elected or to be elected” as an excessive subjective element, other than intentional intent, shall be clearly defined in the law, and its purpose shall be sufficiently recognizable if there is no need to be active desire or conclusive recognition. Whether there was such a purpose shall be determined reasonably in light of ordinary social norms, by taking into account various circumstances, such as the motive and process of publication, method and method of publication, content and manner of act, nature and extent of the other party where such publication was conducted, and social situation at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5953, Sept. 20, 2007).

(2) According to the above evidence, the defendant sold 40,00 shares of the non-indicted 1 corporation on October 5, 2007 and October 8, 2007, and then sold 400,000 shares to give a warning to the market price manipulation force, the share price of the non-indicted 1 corporation began to decline, and the cancellation of the MOU as of November 8, 2007 was announced on April 19, 2007, the share price fell to the extent that it could not be recovered, and the small amount of investors' objection was followed against the defendant's sale of shares and the decline in the share price. In particular, when the defendant sold 130,00 shares on October 5, 207, the defendant, without mentioning it, posted on the company's homepage that the defendant could sell shares on the same day to secure business funds, and further, the defendant sold shares to the non-indicted 1 corporation, including the above 200,000 shares under his real name and 3 shares.

In the event that the defendant sold real name shares and the defendant's resistance against the reasons for the sale of the shares and the defendant's explanation was made to the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, and the defendant was under investigation by the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, if it is revealed that the defendant had property of at least 9.5 billion won, such as attached Table IV, and in particular, that the defendant sold the borrowed shares under the name of its executives and employees and left many profits from the market price, it can be sufficiently anticipated that not only the recommendation of the defendant for the 18th National Assembly election candidate against the defendant in the integrated democracy but also the recommendation of the defendant as a candidate for proportional representative, even if the defendant was recommended as a candidate for proportional representative, it would have adversely affected the voting by the elector of the political party to which he belongs. Thus, it is clear that the failure to disclose the holding of the above borrowed property was favorable to

Property generated from the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions shall be subject to additional collection pursuant to subparagraph 16 of Article 2 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and whether it is subject to additional collection pursuant to Articles 8 and 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, shall not be subject to additional collection if it is impossible to specify criminal proceeds that are subject to additional collection, although it does not require strict certification, and the additional collection pursuant to Article 10 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment is voluntary. Thus, even if it meets the requirements for additional collection, whether it is subject to additional collection shall be subject to the discretion of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2451, Jun. 14, 2007).

Meanwhile, the term "profit from a violation" under the proviso of Article 207-2 (1) and Article 207-2 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act refers to the profit from a transaction related to the violation (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1256, Jun. 14, 2002). It does not necessarily mean that there is a direct causal relationship with the violation, but it constitutes the profit from a transaction in which the violation is involved (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1628, Sept. 3, 2004).

However, considering that the market price of securities, including stocks, is not determined only by a certain factor but also by a very wide variety of factors, it cannot be said that the market price of securities is determined by the market price manipulation. However, from the perspective of criminal liability, considering the fact that the large and large amount of market price gains generated from the violation can be an important factor to determine the seriousness of criminal liability against the person who committed such violation, Article 207-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act does not include a provision on statutory punishment for criminal punishment, nor is it intended to deprive the profits that have a direct causal relationship with the violation (see Constitutional Court Decision 2002HunBa69, 2003Hun-Ba41, Sept. 25, 2003).

If so, based on the provision of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, it is reasonable to interpret that in the case of fraudulent transactions under Article 270-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act, the criminal proceeds subject to confiscation or collection under the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment shall be limited to the profits directly related to the violation in accordance with the principle of constitutional interpretation.

In the instant case, considering the nature of the Defendant’s fraudulent illegal transactions and the fluctuation of the share price of the same company during that period, and the fact that Nonindicted 2’s investment power, such as the members of the ○○ Investment Research Institute, could not be denied that the amount of the investment influence of Nonindicted 1 Stock Company was significantly affected by the stock price increase, it is difficult to view the entire market price gains earned by the Defendant in the instant case as the profits directly related to the Defendant’s fraudulent illegal transactions, and there is no other evidence to determine whether there was a direct causal relationship.

Therefore, the defendant does not make a separate collection for the defendant, and the defendant's profit from the market price obtained from the fraudulent unfair trading is to use it as sentencing materials when both penalties are imposed on the defendant.

2. Specific terms and conditions of sentencing

The prohibition of fraudulent unfair trading in Article 188-4 (4) of the Securities and Exchange Act is aimed at protecting individual investors' interests participating in securities trading and protecting investors' trust in the general securities exchange as well as contributing to the development of the national economy because the fraudulent unfair trading in securities transaction affects many people and the entire securities market can be unsound.

The Defendant, through an interview of journalists, etc., published false facts as to whether Nonindicted Co. 1 was determined as a business operator of Uzbekistan Mine Development Project, the value of the business in question, and the timing for realizing profit by high-value added value based on such false facts. As a result, as the share price increases, the Defendant did not properly perform the obligation to report under the Securities and Exchange Act despite the ownership of the Defendant’s officers and employees, thereby realizing considerable profits by selling the borrowed stocks not known to the Defendant. Then, the Defendant sold his real name shares and acquired a large amount of 40 billion won, and eventually damaged the interest of general investors, as well as the soundness of the securities market, and the Defendant did not report the above property for the purpose of getting elected as a candidate for proportional representation in the 18th National Assembly member. Therefore, the Defendant requires punishment corresponding to the unlawful act and the result thereof.

Furthermore, the increase in the stock price during the period subject to the price manipulation of this case cannot be denied that the investment power of the members of the ○○ Investment Research Institute operated by Nonindicted Party 2 had influenced a certain portion of the investment power of the Defendant. The project for the development of Uzbekistan mine, which was promoted by the Defendant, was in progress until now by Nonindicted Party 13, etc., who was the partner of the Defendant. The Defendant submits a letter of intent to contribute the amount to the incorporated foundation for the purpose of the most supporting the total juvenile, and the amount remaining after being executed as a penalty or a fine or for the damage to the damaged shareholders, out of the 30 billion property of his own name under the collection preservation in relation to this case, and the amount remaining after being appropriated for the compensation for the damage to the damaged shareholders who have title, out of the 30 billion property of his own name, which was executed by the Defendant, shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million in accordance with the Public Official Election Act.

A. Summary of the facts charged

Nonindicted Co. 38, a subsidiary of Nonindicted Co. 1, is a company established with capital of KRW 2.8 billion on November 2007 (including Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 30% and KRW 70% contribution of Nonindicted Co. 23 Co. 23). The representative director is the head of the new business team of Nonindicted Co. 1.

At the time, the defendant was working as the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 23, a major shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 38, and Nonindicted Co. 11 was the representative director appointed by the defendant, and Nonindicted Co. 38 is also the company that actually controls the management right

On November 207, 2007, when Nonindicted 40, one of the ordinary shareholders of Nonindicted Company 1, who were the general shareholders of Nonindicted Company 1, mobilized violence, “The Defendant sustained damages equivalent to KRW 800 million due to the sale of the Defendant’s shares, which would be compensated for damages.” The Defendant was willing to pay KRW 800 million for the corporate funds of Nonindicted Company 38, a subsidiary of Nonindicted Company 1, to pay KRW 80 million. Nonindicted 11, a representative director of Nonindicted Company 38, voluntarily withdrawn the corporate funds, and conspired with Nonindicted 11 for personal purposes of the Defendant.

On December 11, 2007, Nonindicted 11, upon receipt of the Defendant’s order in accordance with the above public offering, withdrawn KRW 800 million of the company’s funds deposited in the corporate account of Nonindicted Company 38 from the original office of the foreign exchange bank located in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chang-gu, Chungcheongnam-do under the name of “Advance for the purchase of machinery”, and then embezzled KRW 800 million for personal purposes, such as paying Nonindicted 40 as personal compensation, etc. around that time.

B. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion

The KRW 80 million that Nonindicted 11 withdrawn from the corporate account of Nonindicted 38 was not paid to Nonindicted 40, but paid to Nonindicted 39, who actually purchased resource recycling machines from Nonindicted 39. However, due to a different obligation and obligation between Nonindicted 39 and Nonindicted 40, the said money was in excess of 40, and thus, it cannot be said that Nonindicted 11 conspired with the Defendant and Nonindicted 11 conspired to embezzled the corporate funds of Nonindicted 38, by pretending to purchase the machinery funds of Nonindicted 38, or that he intended to acquire unlawful profits.

C. Determination

Of the written statement prepared by Nonindicted 11 and the written statement prepared by the prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 11, which seems consistent with this part of the facts charged, there are parts stating that “The company could not be able to make a threat to the request for the principal of Nonindicted 40, the representative of the victimized Shareholder of Nonindicted Co. 1, and Nonindicted 40, even if Nonindicted 40, which was taking advantage of the recycling facility, would have a problem at the face of a matching KRW 80 million against Nonindicted 40,000,000,” and that “ Nonindicted 40 and Nonindicted 39, even if there is no relationship, prepare a contract with Nonindicted 39, the owner of the instant machine, and pay KRW 89,000,000,000,000,000 to Nonindicted 39, the said money would be delivered to Nonindicted 40.”

However, according to the records, if the Defendant purchased the instant machinery from Nonindicted 41 to Nonindicted 40 and Nonindicted 39, an explanation on the resource recycling of the instant machinery owned by Nonindicted 39, which was installed in the land building in Seosan-si (hereinafter omitted), and on the Defendant’s side, he explained that the problems between Nonindicted 39 and the Defendant and Nonindicted 40, as well as the problems between the Defendant and Nonindicted 40, may be resolved. On December 2, 2007, the Defendant instructed Nonindicted 38’s representative director and 11 to examine whether the instant machinery was feasible. The said appraisal statement stated that the value of the instant machinery was KRW 1.79,00,000,00 which was included in the auction procedure, and that Nonindicted 388,000,000,000,000,000 won for the remainder of the construction site and the intermediate payment for the purpose of 80,000,000 won, after receiving new construction sites from Nonindicted 38,00,00,000 won.

In light of these facts, Nonindicted 11 stated in the Prosecutor’s third protocol of statement, as well as in this court, that Nonindicted 40 and Nonindicted 39 were finally aware of the fact that KRW 800 million paid as the machine purchase price to Nonindicted 39 was finally known to Nonindicted 40, and that the Defendant and Nonindicted 11 conspired with Nonindicted 11 in collusion with the prosecutor’s prior to Nonindicted 11, the fact that Nonindicted 38 corporation actually used KRW 80 million as the price for the purpose of paying the Defendant’s individual damages even though it did not intend to implement the above business, it is insufficient to conclude that the Defendant and Nonindicted 11 conspired with the Defendant and Nonindicted 11 used the machine purchase contract for the purpose of paying the Defendant’s individual damages, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, even if there is a lack of a thorough examination of the feasibility of the promotion of projects and the appropriateness of the purchase price, etc. in relation to the payment of KRW 800 million in the purchase of the instant machinery by Nonindicted Co. 38, even though there is a lack of room to view that the thorough examination of the feasibility of the promotion of projects and the appropriateness of the purchase price, etc., included in the company’s business purposes, was intended to actually promote resource recycling projects included in the company’s business purposes, further examination was conducted on the feasibility of the promotion of projects, the appropriateness of the purchase price, etc., and further lack of evidence to view that the purchased machinery value

D. Sub-committee

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 Act.

2. Violation of the Securities and Exchange Act and the Public Official Election Act relating to the borrowed-name shares in Nonindicted 3 and 4

A. Summary of the facts charged and the location of the issues

The summary of the facts charged on the fraudulent unfair trading in this case, violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the violation of the duty to report in possession, violation of the duty to report in possession, violation of the duty to report in possession, and violation of the Public Official Election Act is subject to the premise that the defendant, even in the name of Non-Indicted 3, sold 4,338 shares in the name of Non-Indicted 4 as stated in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes. As a result, the defendant violated the duty to report in possession and the status of stocks owned (the specific contents of the duty to report differ from those of the above), but the amount of profit from the fraudulent unfair trading is different from those of the above conviction, and the court recognized the total amount of property omitted from the property declaration as KRW 43,760,56,573 (this case's 40,361,173,70).

Therefore, the issue of this part is whether the shares of Nonindicted 3 (36,199 shares) sold as stated in the attached list V and the shares of Nonindicted 4 (44,338 shares) are the shares of the Defendant’s name.

B. Determination as to whether Nonindicted 3’s shares are the Defendant’s borrowed shares

(1) Summary of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion

The Defendant was unaware of the existence of Nonindicted 3’s account, and there was no perception that Nonindicted 3’s shares were the Defendant’s property.

(2) Determination

As evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, there are the second written statement of Nonindicted 4 prepared by the prosecutor, and some of Nonindicted 4’s legal statement of the witness. The summary of Nonindicted 4’s above statement is that Nonindicted 3 purchased the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted 3 using the Defendant’s funds, and that Nonindicted 3 reported to the Defendant at the time of borrowing the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of a tea.

However, according to the records, the first purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 was around 202, that Nonindicted Co. 4 purchased 3,00,000 won per share of Nonindicted Co. 1 at the time, and Nonindicted Co. 4 again purchased 600 shares and 420 shares in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3 at around 203 and around 204 (total 1,620 shares purchase amount is KRW 8,10,000), and Nonindicted Co. 4 stated that Nonindicted Co. 3’s personal funds and borrowed accounts were entirely sold to Nonindicted Co. 3, 50, and that Nonindicted Co. 4’s personal funds and borrowed accounts were sold to Nonindicted Co. 3; that Nonindicted Co. 5’s personal funds were sold to Nonindicted Co. 3; that Nonindicted Co. 1,620 shares were sold in the name of Nonindicted Co. 3; that Nonindicted Co. 4’s personal funds and borrowed accounts were sold to Nonindicted Co. 3, 4, Ltd.

On the other hand, in this court, Nonindicted 4 stated that it is unclear whether it was reported to the Defendant when first borrowing Nonindicted 3’s name in this court. In light of the fact that it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 4’s above legal statement is false in light of the following: (a) it was thoroughly exempted in the management of property; and (b) the Defendant recognized that the shares in the name of other executives and employees are the Defendant’s borrowed shares; and (c) it is difficult to deem that there are special circumstances to deny that only the shares in the name of Nonindicted 3, whose quantity or sale price is less than the shares in the name of other executives and employees, are the shares in the name

Therefore, even if the initial purchase fund of Nonindicted 3’s shares was the Defendant’s money, it is difficult to view that Nonindicted 3’s shares were the Defendant’s ownership of the profit or loss, or that the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s own property, and there is no other evidence to support it.

C. Determination as to whether 44,338 shares sold among the shares in Nonindicted 4’s name constitutes a borrowed-name shares

(1) Summary of the defendant and defense counsel's assertion

The 44,338 shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 4 were sold among Nonindicted Co. 33,978 shares and was sold among Nonindicted Co. 4’s 123,268 shares and was not sold out of the Defendant’s borrowed shares.

(2) Determination

According to the records, Non-Indicted 4 ordered Non-Indicted 4 to sell 3,160,114,838 won in total during the period from September 19, 2007 to October 10, 2007 without distinguishing 123,268 shares of Non-Indicted 1 Co., Ltd. and 210,710 shares of Non-Indicted 1 Co. 4, the Defendant’s second name, the Defendant’s second name, and the second name, Non-Indicted 1 Co. 23, the Defendant’s second name, to sell 4,38 shares in total from September 19, 207 to October 10, 207. As seen earlier, the Defendant used the second name shares to make up for the remaining balance of the shares transferred to the Defendant’s account, on the ground that he prepared for the purchase fund of non-Indicted 1’s own real name shares and the second name shares sold in the name of Non-Indicted 4 Co. 3, the remaining balance of the shares transferred to the Defendant’s account.

Furthermore, when Nonindicted 4 sells 123,268 shares and 210,710 shares of the Defendant’s name shares, which he managed without dividing Nonindicted 4 into the same account, 44,338 shares as above, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant ordered Nonindicted 4 to sell the Defendant’s name shares, that Nonindicted 4 would sell the Defendant’s name shares first, or that Nonindicted 4 would sell the Defendant’s name shares first, or that all or part of Nonindicted 4’s name shares sold by Nonindicted 4 as the Defendant’s name shares.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, as long as the shares of Nonindicted 3 were recognized as the defendant's borrowed-name shares, and 44,338 shares sold out of Nonindicted 4's shares are the defendant's borrowed-name shares, each of the facts charged under the premise that the defendant is the defendant's borrowed-name shares, and thus, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is found that there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act

Judges Lee Il-man (Presiding Judge)

1) Nonindicted Co. 1 is the socially weak in the place of redemption.

2) As seen below, the Defendant, on April 25, 2007, converted the estimated sales volume of 10 million tons into the report materials on April 25, 2007 by applying the price of the “Mespion container,” which is a processed product not a mineral, not a “Mespion container,” and entered as if the Defendant “to secure a dead mine of a size equivalent to 10 billion won (i.e., USD 1000/100 x 10 million tons)” even if the net sales price was based on the net sales price of 98%. However, when applying the estimated sales price, it is merely 1.5 billion tons (i.e., regular 150 million tons x 10 million tons).

3) In the facts charged, the shares in Nonindicted 3 are the borrowed-name shares, and the 44,338 shares out of Nonindicted 4’s borrowed-name shares 210,710 shares were sold, and after October 10, 2007, the 44,338 shares out of Nonindicted 4’s borrowed-name shares were left 16,372 shares. However, as seen later, it cannot be said that the shares in Nonindicted 3 were either the Defendant’s borrowed-name shares or the Defendant was aware of the shares, and 44,338 shares sold out of Nonindicted 4’s borrowed-name shares are deemed to be the shares in Nonindicted 4. Therefore, except for the shares in Nonindicted 3’s borrowed-name shares, the total number of shares owned by the Defendant was calculated on the premise that the shares in Nonindicted 4 remain in existence. This is true, and even if the Defendant was aware of the violation of the obligation to report the original facts and the obligation to report the changes in the amount of profit by the Defendant’s use of defense.

4) In calculating profits earned from violations, not only the profits from specific transactions but also the appraised profits of the stocks subject to manipulation which were held at the time of the end of the market price manipulation. However, in this case, the prosecutor did not include this part in the amount of profit. Thus, the court calculated the amount of profit of the defendant according to the method calculated by the prosecutor within the scope of KRW 43,760,556,573, which the prosecutor stated as the amount of profit, so that no substantial disadvantage may be caused to the defendant’