Of the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the part against Defendant D and the treasury shares against Defendant F.

1. The lower court found Defendant A guilty of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to false description in the business report related to the disposal of the treasury stocks of Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) among the instant facts charged, and of violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, the lower court acquitted Defendant B, C, D, Limited Company E (hereinafter “E”), and F of all the facts charged.

In this regard, the prosecutor filed an appeal only against the acquittal portion, and since the defendant A and all the prosecutors did not appeal against the conviction portion and the conviction portion is confirmed as it is, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the acquittal portion among the judgment below.

2. The judgment on the appeal as to the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act related to the acquisition of 10,454,600 shares of F against Defendant A, B, C, E, and Defendant F

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles), although Defendant B could fully recognize the fact that he/she acquired FF shares from S, T (hereinafter collectively referred to as “S”) in the name of E, 10,454,600 shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”), the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on unfair trading by Defendant A and C, which correspond to the facts charged, and acceptance of Defendant B’s assertion against this, based on the premise that Defendant B only acquired FF shares 2.5 million shares, and based on the premise that Defendant B took over only 2.5 million shares, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and Financial Investment Business Act, each of Defendant B’s respective violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and each of Defendant C, E, and F, and each of the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

B. Determination 1) This part.