All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Public prosecutor: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing 1) An account in the name of P, I, N, and F (hereinafter “instant account”) among the securities accounts in the name of a third party using market price manipulation or misunderstanding of legal principles.

A) 50% of the profits accrued from the instant account was agreed to belong to the Defendant, and thus, at least 50% of the profits accrued from the instant account ought to be recognized as unjust enrichment acquired by the Defendant as market price manipulation. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”).

(2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of “profit derived from a violation” under the proviso of Article 443(1) and Article 443(2), thereby adversely determining the instant case as “where it is difficult to compute the profit derived from a manipulation of market prices.”

B. Defendant: The Defendant and his defense counsel explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date.

The above-mentioned sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined that the instant case constituted “where it is difficult to calculate the profit gained by the manipulation of market prices” under the proviso of Article 443(1) of the Capital Markets Act, by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine. 2) The lower court’s determination under the Capital Markets Act as part of the element of crime, “the profit gained by or loss avoided by the manipulation of market prices” is aggravated depending on the value (Article 443(1) proviso and Article 443(2)). In so doing, the value of the profit gained by the offense is calculated strictly and