Defendant 1 and one other

Both parties

Courtrooms (prosecutions) and stuffs (public trials)

Law Firm Initial, Attorney Lee Dong-name

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gohap142 Decided November 29, 2012

The part of the judgment of the court below against guilty (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment of three years and fine of three hundred million won, and by fine of three hundred million won, respectively.

When Defendant 1 does not pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 500,000 into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) As to the violation of prohibition of market price manipulation

The purpose of this article is to write down the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”) in the “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” bulletin. In light of the prospect for rapid growth of the future 3D industry, inasmuch as the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 are extremely promising, the current share price is currently low, and in consideration of the growth value for the future 10 years of Nonindicted Co. 1, the shares of Nonindicted Co. 1 should not be traded at a single, and the long-term investment should not be made for at least two years, and the “shareholders acting” emphasizing that they are emphasizing, namely, “shareholders shall actively participate in the general meeting of shareholders, and shall refrain from doing any act contrary to the interests of the company and shareholders.” In accordance with the principle of management participation, Defendant 1 also declared that they will participate in the management of Nonindicted Co. 1.

The purpose of Defendant 1 was to act as a shareholder in order to enhance shareholder values by receiving a letter of delegation of voting rights from the members of Nonindicted Company 2 who hold the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 at the regular general meeting of shareholders held at the end of March 2010. However, as a result of questioning with the Financial Supervisory Service, it was determined that the first intended purpose of the voting right can be sufficiently achieved even if individual shareholders who are interested in the lack of time to receive a power of representation from the members of Defendant 2, attend the general meeting of shareholders and speak at the general meeting of shareholders, and ultimately, he would not exercise voting rights by proxy.

Defendant 1 did not intend to make a change in the market price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 by artificially manipulating the market price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 and did not actually make any such artificial manipulation. Therefore, Defendant 1’s comments posted by Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have the purpose of inducing the sale and purchase of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1.

Defendant 1 does not call to the effect that there is no doubt that he expressed himself to operate the market in relation to the share price of Nonindicted Company 1, and that there is no change in the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 due to his market manipulation.

Inasmuch as Defendant 1’s management participation in Nonindicted Company 1, which was declared through comments posted on the “○○○○○○○○○○○○” bulletin, is merely an expression of general investment principles, it does not constitute “an important fact in trading the relevant securities” under Article 176(2)3 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and does not constitute “a false indication or misunderstanding”.

Therefore, the lower court’s determination is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to Article 176(2)2 and 3 of the Capital Markets Act, without examining the overall purport of the comments inserted by Defendant 1 on “○○○○○○○○○,” thereby pointing out several comments, thereby misunderstanding the fact that Defendant 1 was a result of a finishing a part of a route.

B) As to the violation of prohibition on unfair trading, etc.

Defendant 1 recommended that “A person who makes an investment in a long-term value reporting would continue to hold Nonindicted Company 1’s shares,” and that he did not say that a person who uses the bulletin board “○○○○○○○○○○○” would not sell or buy Nonindicted Company 1’s shares without any conditions, and rather, recommended that a person who makes an investment in a long-term value reporting should freely trade the shares of Nonindicted Company 1, depending on their respective circumstances.

In the article that Defendant 1 posted on the “○○○○○○○○○○○○” bulletin, emphasizing that “not to sell Nonindicted Company 1’s shares prior to 2012” was merely an emphasis on the long-term holding of Nonindicted Company 1’s shares, but not an absolute sale of Nonindicted Company 1’s shares held by the Defendants prior to 2012.

○ In the case of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 2”), Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares are sold in order to eliminate the obstacles to listing on the KOSDAQ promoted by Defendant 2 by resolving the loss of KRW 1.8 billion on the end balance sheet of 2009, and Defendant 1’s sale of Nonindicted Co. 1’s shares to prepare for a lawsuit with the tax authority in the future and to meet the family’s living expenses, including the marriage funds, and the company’s operating expenses, etc.

○ The time when the Defendants first purchased Nonindicted Company 1’s shares was around September 2009 to October, 10, and the time when the Defendants temporarily sold the shares was held for about 8-9 months around May 6, 2010, and thus, it does not constitute a short trading, and in particular, it does not constitute a short trading, after the National Tax Service’s cancellation of most of the seizure of the personal securities transaction account, confirmed that the Defendants did not intend to second seize the shares of Nonindicted Company 1, and purchased the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 again. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants again purchased the shares of Nonindicted Company 1

According to the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants used unlawful means, plans, or tricks against Defendant 2’s members or used deceptive schemes in temporarily selling Nonindicted Company 1’s shares in around 2010.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Articles 178(1)1 and 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

C) As to the amount of loss avoided by the Defendants

The amount of loss avoided from the sale of shares held by the Defendants should be calculated in the same manner as the original judgment, but the amount to be deducted from the evaded loss should be the amount of loss actually incurred after the re-purchase by the Defendants. Since the stock price of Nonindicted Company 1 after the re-purchase by the Defendants has continuously decreased and the Defendants actually suffered a large number of losses, the average re-purchase unit price of the Defendants (3,357 won) shall be calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by deducting the share price of Nonindicted Company 1 on the date of prosecution or the date of pronouncement of judgment by the number of re-purchases.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence of the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Whether market price manipulation was prohibited

1) Criteria for determining market price manipulation

The term “purposes of inducing to trade” under Article 176(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act means that the market price is formed by the principle of natural demand and supply in the securities market, etc. for investors to cause a fluctuation in the market price through artificial manipulation. However, there is no question as to whether the market price exists for other purposes or any purpose with the intent to attract investors to trade securities, etc., and the degree of awareness of the purpose is sufficient to do so, and whether the investor’s misunderstanding actually caused misunderstanding, or whether damage has occurred to others. The purpose of this purpose is to comprehensively consider indirect facts such as the nature of securities and the total number of outstanding securities, the motive and appearance of the trading (the degree of net price increase or the best trading, the degree of market share, the degree of market share increase, the trend of the price and trading volume of the securities, the transaction situation before and after the trading, the economic rationality and fairness of the transaction, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do719, Oct. 27, 2011).

In addition, “material fact in selling and buying securities” under Article 176(2)3 of the Capital Markets Act means a fact that may have a significant impact on the property or management of the pertinent corporation or that may affect investors’ judgment on investment as necessary for fair trade in specific securities, etc. and protection of investors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do8109, Oct. 27, 201; 2009Do1374, Jul. 9, 2009).

2) The judgment of the court below

피고인들은 원심에서도 이 부분 항소이유와 동일한 취지의 주장을 하였고, 원심은 ‘피고인들 및 변호인의 주장에 관한 판단’이라는 제목하에, ① 피고인 1이 2009. 10. 23. 자신이 개최한 세미나에서 피고인 2 회사 회원들에게 공소외 1 회사의 주가가 2010년 3,750원(약 3배), 2011년 7,500원(약 6배), 2012년 15,000원(약 12배), 2013년 30,000원(약 24배), 2014년 60,000원(약 48배), 2015년 120,000원(약 96배)으로 폭등할 것이라는 내용의 강의를 하고 그와 관련한 자료를 배포하였으며, 2009. 10. 25. 피고인 2 회사 사이트내에 주식에 관한 정보를 제공하고 매수추천 등을 하는 ‘○○○ ○○’을 개설한 직후부터 공소외 1 회사 주식의 매수시점 및 매수가격에 대한 추천을 실시간으로 게시하였고 피고인 2 회사 회원들에게 유사한 내용의 문자메시지를 수시로 발송하였으며, 구체적인 예상주가를 제시하거나 주가가 높은 다른 종목과의 비교 등을 통하여 매우 단정적인 어조로 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매수할 경우 안정적으로 큰 수익을 거둘 수 있다는 글을 게시한 사실, ② 공소외 1 회사의 주가는 2009. 10. 23.부터 2009. 11. 20.까지는 큰 변화가 없었으나, 2009. 11. 20. 1,595원이던 공소외 1 회사의 주가는 2010. 1. 5. 9,300원까지 급등하였고(483%), 평균 거래량도 약 10배 가량 급증하였으며, 이후 2010. 1. 6. 장중 10,450원까지 상승한 공소외 1 회사의 주가는 그 이후 지속적으로 하락세를 기록하여 2010. 3. 30. 5,080원, 2010. 7. 30. 3,385원, 2010. 12. 30. 2,360원이 되었고, 이 사건 기소 당시(2012. 1. 30.)의 주가는 803원인 사실, ③ 피고인 1은 2009. 8. 14.부터 2010. 2. 2.까지 자신 명의로 공소외 1 회사 주식 868,046주(매수금액 1,282,059,725원), 피고인 2 회사 명의로 1,142,052주(매수금액 1,525,332,995원), 합계 2,010,098주(그외 공소외 3 주식회사 명의로 23,077주)를 매수하였고, 그 중 피고인 1 명의의 주식 4,868주, 피고인 2 회사 명의의 주식 10,000주를 매도하였으며, 피고인 1은 2010. 4. 28.부터 2010. 7. 2.까지 자신 명의의 공소외 1 회사 주식 555,366주 및 피고인 2 회사 명의의 공소외 1 회사 주식 1,036,052주, 합계 1,591,418주를 총 7,595,088,875원에 매도하였고(다만 2010. 5. 25.에는 피고인 2 회사 명의로 8만 주를 매수하였다), 2010. 7. 23.부터 2010. 8. 27.까지 자신 명의로 356,041주 및 피고인 2 회사 명의로 832,305주, 합계 1,188,346주의 공소외 1 회사 주식을 3,916,610,745원에 재매수한 사실, ④ 피고인 1이 2010. 1. 9.경부터 ‘○○○ ○○’ 게시판 및 증권 관련 포털 사이트에, 피고인 2 회사 회원들 및 지인들의 공소외 1 회사 주식 보유량을 파악하고 의결권 행사를 위임받아 공소외 1 회사의 경영에 참여할 것이며, 공소외 1 회사의 최대주주로서 중요한 경영사항에 관하여 사전보고를 받는 등 재무감독권을 행사하는 방식으로 공소외 1 회사의 경영을 사실상·법적으로 통제하여 주가에 미칠 수 있는 악재를 관리하겠다는 취지의 글을 지속적으로 게재하였던 사실, ⑤ 또한 피고인 1은 공소외 1 회사의 대표이사인 공소외 4와 대학 동문임을 강조하면서, ‘공소외 1 회사의 대표이사와 1:1로 만나 세상 사람들이 알아서는 안 될 이야기를 나누고자 한다’, ‘공소외 1 회사의 경영에 참여하는 동안에는 공소외 1 회사의 최상위 내부정보를 알게 되어 공소외 1 회사 주식의 매수추천을 할 수 없다’는 글도 게시하였는데, 위와 같은 게시글들을 통하여 피고인 2 회사의 회원들은 피고인 1이 공소외 1 회사의 경영에 참여함으로써 일반인은 알 수 없는 내부정보를 보유하고 공소외 1 회사의 주가를 피고인 2 회사 회원들에게 유리한 방향으로 관리하여 안정적인 수익을 얻을 수 있을 것으로 생각하게 되었으며, 이러한 사정은 공소외 1 회사의 주식 매수에 있어 중요한 유인이 되었던 점, ⑥ 그러나 공소외 4는 피고인 1이 2010. 4.경 피고인 2 회사 회원 및 지인들의 공소외 1 회사 주식 보유량 합계를 통보하면서 자신과 만나줄 것을 요청하여 비로소 피고인 1 및 피고인 2 회사의 존재를 알게 되었을 뿐 그 전에는 피고인 1을 알지 못하였고, 피고인 1은 공소외 4와 만난 자리에서 ‘BW나 CD 발행을 자제하고, 차입을 하라’는 것과 같은 기업경영에 관한 일반적인 이야기를 하였을 뿐 직접 경영에 참여할 의사를 밝히지도 않았으며, 내부자 정보로 볼 수 있는 이야기는 전혀 오고가지 않았던 사실, ⑦ 피고인 1은 2010. 1. 5.부터 ‘○○○ ○○’ 게시판에 피고인 2 회사 회원 및 지인들의 공소외 1 회사 주식 보유량을 강조하면서 ‘피고인 2 회사 가족이 사실상 공소외 1 회사의 대주주이다’, ‘우리가 물량을 잠그면 주가가 계속 상승한다’, ‘피고인 2 회사 회원들 및 지인들의 주식투자액이 3,000억 원으로 추정되는데, 이런 자금 규모로는 시가총액 1조 원 이하인 회사의 주가를 좌지우지할 수 있다’, ‘공소외 1 회사 주가 3만 원대 안착까지는 25%의 지분을 가진 피고인 2 회사 회원들이 물량을 잠가야 한다’, ‘피고인 2 회사 회원들의 지분비율이 26.91%에 이른다’는 등과 같은 글을 지속적으로 올렸는데, 이와 같은 글은 피고인 1 및 피고인 1을 따르는 피고인 2 회사 회원들의 주식매도 및 매수에 따라 공소외 1 회사의 주가가 변동한다는 내용으로 보아야 하는 점, ⑧ 피고인 회사의 법무팀장은 2010. 3. 17. 물리적 시간 부족 등을 이유로 위임에 의한 공소외 1 회사 주주총회 참가가 무의미하므로 직접 참가를 하고 피고인 1도 변동사항이 없으면 직접 참관할 예정이라는 글을 게시하였으며, 피고인 1도 같은 날 자본시장법이 사실상 직접 참가만 가능하도록 개정되어서 의결권 위임이 무의미해졌다는 글을 올렸으나, 피고인 1은 애초부터 피고인 2 회사 회원들로부터 의결권 위임을 받아 주주총회에서 이를 행사할 의사가 없었던 것으로 보이고, 피고인 1 자신도 주주총회에 참석하지 않은 점, ⑨ 공소외 1 회사가 2009. 7. 9. 금융감독원에 제출한 공시자료에 의하면 공소외 1 회사의 향후 사업전망은 불확실한 면이 많은 상황이었던 점, ⑩ 피고인 1이 게시한 글의 서술방식 및 피고인 2 회사 회원들의 반응 등과 같은 사정을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 1은 공소외 1 회사의 향후 주가를 예상하기 매우 힘든 상황임에도 불구하고 피고인 2 회사 회원들이 공소외 1 회사 주식을 지속적으로 매입하고 팔지 않으면 무조건 주가가 상승하여 3만 원대까지 갈 수 있고, 자신이 피고인 2 회사 회원들을 대리하여 공소외 1 회사의 경영에 참여하여 주가에 악영향을 미치는 요소들을 관리하겠다는 등과 같은 글을 지속적으로 게시함으로써 공소외 1 회사 주식의 매매를 유인할 목적으로 공소외 1 회사 주식의 시세가 자기의 시장 조작에 의하여 변동한다는 말을 유포하고, 공소외 1 회사 주식의 매매에 있어 중요한 사실에 관하여 거짓의 표시 또는 오해를 유발시키는 표시를 하였음이 인정된다고 판단하였다.

3) The judgment of this Court

In light of the legal principles of Article 176 (2) 1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and the lower court’s determination is justifiable in full view of the following: (a) Defendant 1, a quasi-investment advisory business entity, recommended investment in promising issues as a general investment advisory; (b) appears to have actively recommended members of Defendant 2, who are under his influence, to purchase Nonindicted Company 1’s shares in order to increase or maintain the market price of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 owned by the Defendants; and (c) Defendant 1’s management participation as alleged by the Defendants 1 does not appear to have simply exercised the general rights as a shareholder; and (d) it is clear that the prosecutor did not constitute a market price manipulation regulated under Article 176 (2) 1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; and (c) the lower court also determined the facts charged under the same premise. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. Whether the prohibition on unfair trading, etc. is violated

1) Criteria for determining whether to conduct unfair trading

Article 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act prohibits “act of using unfair means, schemes, or tricks” in relation to trading and other transactions of financial investment instruments. “Unlawful means, schemes, or tricks” refers to any means, schemes, or tricks that are generally accepted as unfair by society. Article 178(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act prohibits “seminating a rumor, using deceptive means, assault, or intimidation” for the purpose of trading or any other transaction, or facilitating a fluctuation in the market price of financial investment instruments. Here, “debris” refers to means, schemes, or tricks, which are intended to attract a certain act by deceiving a trading partner or an unspecified investor, and “debrising” refers to any means, schemes, or tricks that are intended to attract a certain act by deceiving another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do8109, Oct. 27, 2011).

In addition, prohibiting any fraudulent unfair trading under the Capital Markets Act is likely to affect a large number of investors in securities transaction and undermine the entire securities market, thereby protecting individual investors' interests in securities transaction as well as protecting investors' trust in the general securities market, thereby contributing to the development of the national economy. As such, whether the securities market is an act related to the trading of securities, such as trading of securities, or whether the act is a deceptive scheme, or whether the act is an object of trading, such as trading of securities, or whether the perpetrator’s status, the motive and circumstance leading up to a specific statement or indication, or whether the statement, etc. was made faithfully on the basis of a reasonable ground, whether the statement, etc. is likely to mislead or mislead the trading partner or unspecified investors, whether the act committed after the statement, etc. was made, and whether the statement, etc. was made in accordance with objective criteria comprehensively and comprehensively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Do35636, Mar. 10, 2011).

In addition, in a case where a defendant denies the existence of a purpose, the existence of the fact, which constitutes such subjective constituent elements, is to be determined by analyzing indirect or circumstantial facts having substantial relevance by its nature. In such a case, what constitutes such indirect or circumstantial facts as to support the existence of the purpose ought to be determined reasonably based on the sound observation and analysis capabilities based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3782, Jun. 28, 2012).

2) The judgment of the court below

피고인들은 원심에서도 이 부분 항소이유와 동일한 취지의 주장을 하였고, 원심은 ‘피고인들 및 변호인의 주장에 관한 판단’이라는 제목하에, ① 유사투자자문업자라고 하더라도 자본시장법에 규정된 금융투자자문업자의 각종 의무에 준하는 정도의 의무가 있다고 보아야 하는 점, ② 피고인 1은 2009. 10.경부터 공소외 1 회사 주식의 매입을 강력하게 추천하면서 최소한 2012년까지 장기보유하면 무조건 고수익이 날 것이라고 장담한 사실, ③ 피고인 1은 공소외 1 회사의 주가가 지속적으로 하락중이던 2010. 4.경에도 위 게시판에 올린 글들에서 공소외 1 회사의 매출을 장담할 아무런 구체적인 근거 없이 단정적인 수치를 제시하면서 공소외 1 회사에 투자할 것을 강력히 권유한 사실, ④ 피고인 1은 2010. 4. 28.부터 피고인 2 회사 명의의 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매도하기 시작하였음에도 불구하고, 2010. 4. 29. 및 2010. 4. 30. 위 게시판에 공소외 1 회사에는 아무런 문제가 없어 ‘스탁론’ 자동반대매물이 사라지면 조만간 주가가 무조건 상승할 것이니 보유물량을 늘릴 것을 추천하거나, 3개월 동안 자신의 지시 없이는 공소외 1 회사 주식을 사지도 팔지도 말라거나, 자신은 2009. 9.경 1,300원 대에 매수한 공소외 1 회사 주식을 아직까지 한 주도 팔고 있지 않고, 자신이 공소외 1 회사 주식을 팔기 시작하면 단기 주가는 예측할 수 없게 될 것이라는 글을 올린 사실, ⑤ 피고인 1은 공소외 1 회사 주식을 지속적으로 매도하던 중인 2010. 6. 8.에도 위 게시판에 2012년부터는 공소외 1 회사의 재무구조가 초우량기업으로 전환되니 장기 투자자는 단기주가 변동에 일체 신경을 쓰지 말라는 글을 올렸고, 2010. 7. 10. 피고인 2 회사 회원들의 총 보유물량이 약 26~30%인데 이런 매물을 가진 조직에서 단기파동 때마다 회원들에게 매도리딩을 하면 주가가 급락하게 되므로 투자자들 모두가 충분한 수익이 발생하는 2012년 이후에야 공소외 1 회사 주식 매도 추천을 할 수 있다는 글을 올렸으며, 그 이후에도 공소외 1 회사에 대한 호재성 기사를 지속적으로 게시한 사실, ⑥ 피고인 2 회사 회원들 중 대부분은 피고인 1의 추천으로 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매수하게 되었을 뿐만 아니라, 피고인 1이 법 전문가이자 주식 전문가인 것처럼 행동하였기 때문에 대다수의 피고인 2 회사 회원들은 피고인 1의 주식투자 추천을 매우 신뢰하고 있었던 점, ⑦ 피고인 1은 금융감독원에서의 제1회 문답 당시 2010. 4. 28. 이후 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매각한 이유에 대해 “국세청이 피고인 1의 재산을 압류하였고, 생활비, 회사운영비 등 1년에 13억 원이 소요되므로 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매각하여 충당한 것”이라고 하면서도, “당시 공소외 1 회사 주가가 하락하고 있어서 주가하락에 따른 추가손실을 막기 위해 매도한 것”이라고 답하였고, 2010. 7. 23. 이후 공소외 1 회사 주식을 재매입한 이유에 대하여는 “매도 가격기준으로 35% 정도 하락하여 재매입하였다”고 진술한 점, ⑧ 피고인 1의 연 수입은 10억 원 이상이므로 생활비, 회사 운영비 등은 피고인 1의 수입에서 충분히 충당할 수 있을 것으로 보이므로, 압류된 주식을 제외한 모든 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매도한 이유를 납득하기 힘든 점, ⑨ 피고인 1은 검찰에서의 제2회 피의자신문 당시 “공소외 1 회사 주가의 변동성이 크기 때문에 현금화를 해놓으면 안정성이 있게 되어서 매각하였다”고 진술하는 등 오히려 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매도하여 현금화를 하는 것이 공소외 1 회사 주식을 계속 보유하는 것보다 안전한 자산관리방법이라고 판단하였음에도 ‘○○○ ○○’에는 최소한 2012년까지 공소외 1 회사 주식을 계속 보유하라는 글을 게시한 점, ⑩ 과세관청은 2010. 4. 23. 피고인 1의 △△은행 □□□ 증권거래계좌와 경기 양평군 소재 부동산을 압류하였고 2010. 4. 28. 피고인 1의 ◇◇◇◇증권 주식계좌를 추가로 압류하였다가 2010. 5. 12. ◇◇◇◇증권 주식계좌를 제외한 나머지 증권거래계좌에 대한 압류를 해제하였는데, 피고인 1은 압류 해제 이후에 대부분의 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매도한 사실, ⑪ 피고인 1은 피고인들 명의로 공소외 6 주식회사, 공소외 7 주식회사 등의 주식도 함께 보유하고 있었음에도 불구하고 자신이 장기 보유를 가장 강력하게 추천한 공소외 1 회사의 주식을 매도한 점, ⑫ 피고인 2 회사 IPO 검토보고서 및 사업보고서의 내용에 의하면, 코스닥 상장 요건을 갖추기 위하여 공소외 1 회사 주식을 실제로 매도하여 차익을 실현할 필요가 있었다는 피고인 1의 주장은 납득하기 어려운 점, ⑬ 이와 같이 피고인 1은 공소외 1 회사 주식의 장기 보유를 강조하면서도 자신은 공소외 1 회사의 주식을 매도하고, 공소외 1 회사의 주가가 하락하자 다시 이를 재매수하는 방법으로 공소외 1 회사 주가 하락으로 인한 손실을 회피하였고, 피고인 1의 추천을 믿고 공소외 1 회사의 주식을 계속 보유한 피고인 2 회사 회원들로서는 주식 매도 시기를 놓쳐 매우 낮은 가격에 공소외 1 회사 주식을 매도하거나 아예 이를 팔지도 못하고 현재까지 보유하고 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인 1이 공소외 1 회사의 주가가 하락할 것을 예상하고 있었음에도 자신의 주식의 매도, 매수 관련 추천을 신뢰하는 피고인 2 회사 회원들에게 공소외 1 회사 주식을 2012년까지 계속 보유할 것을 강조하면서, 반대로 자신은 대부분의 주식을 매도하여 현금화한 것은 공소외 1 회사 주식의 매매와 관련한 부정한 수단, 계획 또는 기교에 해당할 뿐만 아니라, 공소외 1 회사 주식의 매매를 할 목적으로 피고인 2 회사 회원들에게 위계를 사용한 것에 해당한다고 판단하였다.

3) The judgment of this Court

In addition to the facts duly admitted and examined by the court below and the circumstances duly established by the court below, ① Defendant 1, at the time of the second examination of the witness in the prosecutor’s office, did not know about the sale of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1, and Defendant 2, at the time of the second examination of the witness in the prosecutor’s office, sold the shares held by the corporation on April 28, 2010, and continued to sell the shares of Nonindicted Company 1, which were held in the account of Defendant 1, so other Defendant 2’s members would go beyond the regulation upon purchasing the shares. Moreover, if Defendant 2’s members sold the shares, it would result in a loss due to the price decline if the shares were sold, and thus, it was just in the court below’s determination that Defendant 1 did not sell the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 for the next three months since April 29, 2010 to the effect that it did not constitute an additional sale of shares of the said Defendants to the extent that it did not interfere with the above Defendants 1’s long-term sale of the shares.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

C. Whether the calculation of the avoided loss is legitimate

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court: (1) sold shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in its name by Defendant 1 using an unlawful means, scheme, or deceptive scheme to avoid losses incurred by the purchase price of Nonindicted Company 1; (2) from April 28, 2010 to July 2, 2010; (3) sold shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in its name 1,036,052; (1,591,418; (3) sold shares of Nonindicted Company 2 in its average of KRW 742,05; and (4) sold shares of Nonindicted Company 2 in its average of KRW 75,000 [the average of KRW 1,75,00 for shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in its name] 30; and (4) sold shares in its name at KRW 7,59,08,875,000; and (3) sold shares in its average of KRW 1,365,000,000 for shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in its name; and

2) The judgment of this Court

A) Article 443(1) proviso and Article 443(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that “the profit or loss derived from a violation” refers to the profit or loss avoided by a transaction related to the violation, and that the risk and causation arising from the violation is recognized. The burden of proof as to the violation is borne by the prosecutor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do14247, Jan. 27, 2012). Furthermore, Article 443(1) proviso and Article 443(2) proviso and Article 443(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that “the profit or loss resulting from the violation” as part of the constituent elements of the crime, and the punishment is aggravated depending on the value of the crime. Therefore, in applying this provision, a proper balance between the crime and the punishment should be balanced by strictly and carefully calculating the value or loss avoided from the violation. The principle of balanced punishment or punishment should be based on the responsibility and proportional to the liability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do197, etc.

B) On the other hand, as acknowledged by the court below, if Defendant 1 was to avoid the loss from the stock price of Nonindicted Company 1 by selling the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in the name of the Defendants by using an unlawful means, plan, or deceptive scheme, as recognized by the court below, the avoided loss should be deemed to be the amount calculated by deducting the value of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in the case where Defendant 1 did not use them from the value of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 in the case where Defendant 1 used unlawful means, plan, or deceptive scheme. Thus, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that calculated the loss amount avoided by the method of deducting the repurchase price from the sale price.

In addition, in order to find out the impact of Defendant 1 on the value of the non-indicted 1’s stock by using an illegal means, plan or deceptive scheme, it should first be revealed that Defendant 1’s recommendation is trusted and held by the members of the non-indicted 2 who continue to hold the non-indicted 1’s stocks, and their share holdings in the total number of the non-indicted 1’s stocks. There is no objective evidence suggesting that the share holdings of the non-indicted 1 by the members of the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 1 at the time of the non-indicted 1’s unfair trading in this case reach 26 to 30% as alleged by Defendant 1, and there is no evidence suggesting that all the members of the non-indicted 2 did not sell the non-indicted 1’s stocks upon the recommendation of Defendant 1. In light of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to find out the impact on the value of the non-indicted 1’s stock by using the illegal means, plan or deceptive scheme.

C) Therefore, the lower court determined that Defendant 1 avoided loss of KRW 2,344,578,134 due to the instant unfair trading, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the amount of loss avoided by violating the Capital Markets Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is well-grounded, the part of the judgment below's conviction (including the part of innocence) is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is rendered

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence acknowledged by this court is as follows. (b) of the judgment of the court below. " Defendant 1 used a deceptive scheme with Defendant 2's members for the purpose of facilitating the sale and purchase of shares of Nonindicted Company 1 or the fluctuation in the market price thereof, and used a fraudulent scheme with respect to the sale and purchase of financial investment instruments, and thereby avoided losses of KRW 2,344,578,134 in connection with the fraudulent scheme, and thereby, Defendant 1 used a deceptive scheme with Defendant 2's members for "○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○."

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant 1: Articles 443(1)5, 8, and 9, 176(2)2 and 3, 178(1)1, (2), and 447(1) (generally, choice of imprisonment and concurrent punishment of fines) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

○ Defendant 2: Articles 448, 443(1)5, 8 and 9, 176(2)2 and 3, and 178(1)1 and (2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1: Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11448

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The crime of this case is not only impairing the fairness and reliability of the financial market, but also causing damage to the general investors in good faith. In particular, Defendant 2’s members, who trusted Defendant 1, actively encourage the transaction with Defendant 2’s members to interfere with the correct awareness of the risks inevitably accompanying the transaction or to deal with excessive risk, thereby causing damage to many Defendant 2. Although the amount of loss avoided due to the instant unfair trading cannot be calculated accurately due to the lack of proof, it seems that Defendant 1 avoided significant losses in light of the motive, contents, etc. of the transaction. Nevertheless, Defendant 1 did not go against the mistake while denying the crime, and many investors who purchased Nonindicted Company 1’s shares upon the recommendation of Defendant 1 wanted to punish Defendant 1.

However, Defendant 1 did not have any particular criminal record except for a minor criminal record, Defendant 1’s appearance of unfair trading committed by Defendant 1 does not lead to a typical market price adjustment or fraudulent unfair trading that profits by making a large amount of shares through a massive disguised trading during a short period, the Defendants suffered a large amount of losses since the Defendants held the shares of Nonindicted Party 1, and Defendant 1 strongly recommended the purchase of Nonindicted Party 1’s shares through a large number of notices, the stock transaction entails certain risks depending on the uncertainty of various factors affecting the original share price, and thus, rather than carefully reviewing the risks themselves, the responsibility of the investors of Nonindicted Party 1’s shares is greater in terms of the number of persons who suffered losses and their losses due to investment in Nonindicted Party 1’s shares, and the number of persons who invested in the Nonindicted Party 1’s shares and the amount of losses has increased due to a large amount of imprisonment with prison labor from December 209 to 3D share price increase due to the appearance of △△△△’s film, and the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s actual increase in value and losses.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant 2, was urgently affected by the stock price of Nonindicted Company 1 after January 5, 2010, and his members and branch members, etc., were to prevent the rapid decline of the stock price by simultaneously selling the stocks of Nonindicted Company 1, which he held by him, on the bulletin board of “○○○○○○○○○” around January 12, 2010, and on February 2, 2010, threatened members, including the victim Nonindicted Company 10, by presenting an article stating that “When the fact of sale was discovered while prohibiting the short-term sale of the stocks of Nonindicted Company 1, it shall be deemed permanent expulsion from a member, and all the stocks of Defendant 2, who had already been distributed, would be forfeited.”

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below, i.e., ① when considering the overall context of the above article as of January 12, 2010 and February 2, 2010, Defendant 1 appears to have mentioned the measures such as loss of membership, claim for damages, lawsuit for damages, etc., ② among Defendant 2, who stated that Defendant 1 made the above notice to the effect that he would not sell the shares of Nonindicted Company 1, the number of members of the board of accident was actually many times, ③ there was no method to unilaterally grasp the shares of Defendant 2, and such circumstance could sufficiently be known to the general public, it is difficult to find that Defendant 1 did not have any sufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 2 would have made the above notice to the extent of harm and injury to Defendant 2’s members.

Therefore, the above facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of each of the Capital Markets Act in relation to a single comprehensive crime, the judgment of innocence is

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant 2 company, avoided loss of KRW 3.24 billion through unfair trading as stated in its reasoning, and the facts charged above should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is difficult to calculate the loss avoided by Defendant 1 as stated in the aforementioned facts charged, and there is no proof of crime. However, as long as it is found that Defendant 1 was guilty of violating the Capital Markets Act as stated in each of the above facts charged, it shall not be sentenced separately

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)