The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and a fine of two hundred million won.

The Defendants respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to be an investment trading business under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Market Act”), Defendant A (misunderstanding of the legal principles and sentencing unfair) and the Act on Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets (hereinafter “Capital Market Act”) should not only be limited to a continuous or repeated manner for the purpose of gaining profit, but also be recognized as either maintaining the inventory of financial investment instruments to respond to another person’s order at any time, securing a continuous customer, inducing the other party’s subscription, and advertising as a trader or market developer.

However, even though Defendant A repeated the sale and purchase of unlisted stocks to gain profits, Defendant A did not keep the inventory of unlisted stocks at any time in order to respond to other persons’ orders, and did not have any customer, but did not use the unlisted stock transaction site and did not make any advertisement separately. In light of the fact that the above Defendant’s transaction of unlisted stocks in this case constitutes an “business” in an investment trading business or an investment brokerage business that is subject to authorization, even though it may be deemed to be an occupational category, or that it does not constitute an “business” in an investment trading business that is subject to authorization.

2) Sentencing: (a) the fact that, for one’s own profit, the illegal criminal defendant did not gain profits by spreading distorted information to the off-the-counter market or disrupt market order; (b) the fact that the amount of equity capital required by the law and obtaining authorization from the professional investors including the criminal defendant is somewhat different from the transaction reality; (c) more than half of the items of the criminal defendant traded are listed; (d) the criminal defendant was merely engaged in mediating transactions by arranging transactions in order to raise the volume through “A”, a transaction site in which the criminal defendant was requested by a specific client in the form of an individual business operator; and (e) the criminal defendant did not recommend unfair investments.