All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Part on violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act due to fraudulent illegal transactions

A. (1) Prior to the amendment by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013 (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013) on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, G, H, E, and F

Article 178(1) of the former Capital Market Act (hereinafter “former Capital Market Act”) prohibits “act of using an unfair means, scheme, or trick” (Article 178(1) in relation to trading, etc. of financial investment instruments, and “act of seeking money or other economic benefits by using a document containing a false description or representation of a material fact, or an omission of a description or representation of a material fact necessary for preventing others from being misled, or any other description or representation (Article 178(1)2).”

In addition, Article 178(2) of the former Capital Market Act prohibits “seminating a rumor, using a deceptive scheme, assault, or threat” for the purpose of trading, etc. of financial investment instruments or promoting a fluctuation in the market price.

The term “unfair means, scheme, or trick” refers to any means, scheme, or trick that is deemed unfair in light of social norms, and “defensive means, scheme, or trick” refers to any means, scheme, or trick for the purpose of inducing a certain act by deceiving the other party to a transaction or an unspecified investor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do3180, Jul. 14, 2011; 201Do8109, Oct. 27, 2011). Moreover, whether a transaction involving financial investment instruments constitutes an act related to trading, etc., or an unfair means, scheme, or trick, or fraud, whether a person is intended to cause a fluctuation in market price, or not, shall be based on reasonable grounds when the offender’s status, motive, circumstance, and statement made by a specific statement or indication are predicted or prospects for future financial status or business performance.