The judgment below

The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment of two years and six months and fine of 200,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the limitation on the operation of the primary market price for the shares of the dynamic drug, the lack of collateral for the operation of the primary market price for the shares of the dynamic drug, the share price increase rate, etc., are irrelevant to each other. The most of the shares offered as security are the shares of the dynamic drug Co., Ltd. (hereinafter each company’s name omitted), and there is no incentive for the Defendant to operate the market price for the shares of the dynamic drug to resolve the shortage

As the share price drops, the Defendant traded stocks in large volume with the limited and dynamic drugs to secure the quantity. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s stock transaction was the market price solely on the ground that the share ratio is high.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B) Even after the second market price control period for the shares in Tropical and dynamic drugs, the share price was not urgent even after the market price control period. Since there were many media reports at the time, it cannot be the basis for the charge of market price control to the effect that the share price increase rate is higher than the index of the pharmaceutical industry, and that the share price increase rate of shares in the dynamic drugs was higher than the index of the pharmaceutical industry. The order for the involvement in the market was not issued, and the fact that the share ratio of the Defendant was high cannot be the basis for the control of the market price. Therefore, the Defendant’s share transaction cannot be viewed as the market price control.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

C) In light of the fact that there was no verification of the correlation between the Defendant’s trade volume and closing price fluctuations in the market price of the two-use machine stocks, the correlation between the Defendant’s improper gains therefrom and the Defendant’s unfair gains amount, and the price fluctuation of the two-use machine is similar to the fluctuation of the non-metallic mineral index, the order for the Si/Gun/Gu involvement was not made, and there was a public announcement of the heading that would serve as the basis for the normal stock price increase at the time.