The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

However, as to Defendant B, this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) Defendants (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) as to the Defendants’ violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to unfair trading in 2013 (crimes No. 2-B of the judgment below) (crimes No. 2-B of the judgment below), whether the Defendants made a false disclosure or not should be determined on the basis of whether the content of the publication itself is false. The Defendants made a public announcement to the effect that the merger schedule will be postponed in the situation where the Defendants continued the merger between N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) and P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”), and the content of the publication itself is not itself false.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not based on the “whether the content of disclosure itself is false or not,” but rather, based on the “whether the Defendants actually had the intent to engage in the merger”, determined that the content of disclosure was false on the ground that there were obstacles to the merger between N andO at the time of the said disclosure.

2) The lower court recognized the amount of damage as KRW 726,315,789, even though the amount of damage caused by Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust (the crime of breach of trust No. 3-B as indicated in the lower judgment’s judgment) on February 24, 2012 was KRW 592,745,714.

B. In most cases, most of the Defendants were led to each of the instant crimes in the process of making efforts to resolve N's poorness, which is an economic well-known community with theO, and there are some circumstances to take into account the circumstances. In particular, N's poorness occurred mainly by former management; Defendant A appeared in the process of resolving N's poorness; Defendant A appeared in the process of resolving his occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust; Defendant A's large shareholder of theO andO did not want to be punished against Defendant A; and Defendant A's major shareholder.