All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court maintained the judgment of the first instance court as follows.

(1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone leads to a crime of market price control on the shares of a stock company AP (hereinafter “AP”) in collusion with Defendant A and Defendant B, or Defendant G committed the crime in collusion with Defendant A.

It is insufficient to recognize.

(2) The evidence presented by the prosecutor alone proves that the GZ committed a crime of market price manipulation in collusion with the Defendant A, B, or G on the shares was beyond reasonable doubt.

subsection (b) of this section.

(3) The first and third market price controls of Defendant A’s AP shares, and the first and third market price controls of Defendant B and G with respect to Defendant B’s shares, are continuously committed for a certain period of time under the single and continuous criminal intent.

(4) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was that the time when the third market price operation crime of the AP shares was completed on August 5, 2010. Defendant A, B, and G obtained the same benefit as the facts charged due to the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Market Act”).

It is insufficient to recognize.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “profit derived from a violation” under Article 443(1) and (2) of the former Act on the Business of Financial Investment and Capital Markets (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “former Capital Market Act”).

2. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered the first instance judgment as follows.