[1] The elements of "material information" subject to the prohibition of using undisclosed information under Article 188-2 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act

[2] The case holding that the information that a specific pharmaceutical company has invested 3.07% of its equity capital and participates in capital increase issued by a third party for the first time in Korea is not an "material information" subject to the prohibition of using undisclosed information under Article 188-2 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act

[1] In full view of the purport of the principle of no punishment without the law and the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes related to securities transaction as to "material information" and "public disclosure", any information constitutes "material information" subject to prohibition of using undisclosed information under Article 188-2 (2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (repealed by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007), as well as "information that may have a significant impact on investors' investment judgment" as a type of act that can be predicted by the general public, and its contents fall under the specific obligation to report under each subparagraph of Article 186 (1) of the same Act, each subparagraph of Article 83 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and each subparagraph of Article 69 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, and even if not, it should be disclosed to the public in accordance with the provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes.

[2] The case holding that the nonpublic information that a specific pharmaceutical company has invested 3.07% of its equity capital in Korea's first long-term development company's participation in the issue of capital increase for the first time is not an "material information" subject to the prohibition of using undisclosed information under Article 188-2 (2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (repealed by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007), since it does not fall under the investment ratio specified in the securities transaction regulations and does not fall under the scope of the obligation to report under the law as well as the information expected to be disclosed under the law at the time

[1] Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 186(1), 188-2(2), and 207-2(1)1 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (repealed by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007); Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act; Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the Securities and Exchange Act; Article 69(1) of the Regulations on Issuance and Public Notice of Securities / [2] Articles 186(1), 188-2(2), and 207-2(1)1 of the former Securities and Exchange Act; Article 83 of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act; Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the Securities and Exchange Act; Article 69(1) of the Regulations on Issuance and Public Notice of Securities and Exchange

Defendant 1 and four others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Maximum Truth

Law Firm Don and 3 others

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gohap159 Decided July 20, 2007

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000.

When Defendant 1 and 2 fail to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

In regard to Defendant 2, two days of detention before the judgment of the court below is made shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

Defendants 1 and 2 are not guilty of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the use of undisclosed information against Defendant 1 and 2, and Defendant 3 and 4 are not guilty.

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 5 is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1, 2

(1) The instant information does not constitute “material information” that is not disclosed to the general public under Article 188-2(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act (hereinafter “the Act”), and even if it falls under material information, it cannot be deemed that such information was embodied and objectively mature at the time of the purchase of shares by the Defendants.

(2) The reason why the Defendants purchased shares was to secure a secret interest in preparation for the competition of management rights, so there was no intention for the Defendants to use the instant information to promote profit-making profits such as market price.

(3) In calculating the Defendants’ profits from the instant stock transaction, the lower court based on the closing price of the shares of Jinyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Jinyang”) on July 12, 2005. However, since July 12, 2005, the share price increase portion was due to the publication that Meinio Co., Ltd. (former trade name “Mein Co., Ltd.”; hereinafter “Meinio”) produced reproduction and pigs with human HLA-G genes, and thus, the calculation of its profits should be based on the closing price of Jinyang Pinyang stocks as of July 11, 2005.

(4) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 3

(1) The instant information does not constitute “material information” under Article 188-2(2) of the Act.

(2) On June 2005, the Defendant, who was a friendship and investment counselor, was employed by Nonindicted 1, the Defendant, as his father, Nonindicted 2, a vice-chairperson of the Jinyang medicine, and was suffering from the financial difficulties, recommended the Defendant to select a promising issue in the stock market and recommend the Defendant. On June 28, 2005, the Defendant sent e-mail with the content of recommending the Jinyang medicine. The Defendant purchased the Jinyang medicine shares on July 7, 2005, and thereafter, purchased the instant information from his father, Nonindicted 2, a vice-chairperson of the Jinyang medicine, and thus, the Defendant’s purchase of shares on July 7, 2005, did not use the instant information.

(3) The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant 4

(1) The instant information does not constitute “material information” under Article 188-2(2) of the Act.

(2) The calculation of profits arising from the stock transaction of this case shall be based on the closing price of the de facto stocks held on July 11, 2005.

(3) The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(d) Swords;

(1) In light of the fact that Article 188-2 (1) 4 of the Act only provides that "a person who has entered into a contract with the pertinent corporation" shall be so-called "a person who has entered into the contract," and does not limit "a person who has entered into the effective contract" to "a person who has entered into the contract", even though IMMM entered into the instant new shares acquisition contract with the Jinyang Medicine on July 4, 2005 without a resolution of the board of directors on the issuance of new shares, Defendant 5, the representative director of IMMMM, shall be deemed to have acquired the status of "a person who has entered into the contract with the pertinent corporation" under Article 188-2 (1) 4 of the Act due to the conclusion of the above new shares acquisition. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant 5 on the ground that there was no resolution of the board of directors of IMMM at the time of the above new shares acquisition.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

Whether the information of this case constitutes "material information" as stipulated in Article 188-2 (2) of the Act with the purport that Jinyang's investment of KRW 1,002,750,000, which is 3.07% of its equity capital, constitutes "material information" as stipulated in Article 188-2 (2) of the Act. Thus, the issue of whether Jinyang's investment in KRW 1,02,750,000 of its equity capital constitutes "material information

(a) Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the prohibition of inside trading;

The provisions related to the prohibition of internal trading under the Securities and Exchange Act (including the Securities and Exchange Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations on Issuance, Public Disclosure, etc. of Securities") which was enacted by delegation of Article 3 (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act; hereinafter the same shall apply) which was in force at the time of the instant case are listed in the attached Table.

B. The judgment of the court below

After compiling relevant evidence, the court below reasoned that "material information" under Article 188-2 (2) of the Act is not limited to the information on each fact under Article 186 (1) 1 through 13 of the Act, but is related to "matters that have a significant impact on the management, property, etc. of a corporation," and if a reasonable investor makes a decision by comparing and assessing "receability" and "receability" that may cause a significant impact on the management, etc. of a corporation, the court below determined that the information of this case constitutes "material information" under Article 188-2 (2) of the Act, even if it is not provided for in each subparagraph of Article 186 (1) of the Act, and it is generally difficult to view that the investment of another corporation itself has a significant impact on the investment decision of a general investor. However, considering various circumstances recognized by the court below in this case, the information of this case constitutes "material information" under Article 188-2 (2) of the Act.

C. The judgment of this Court

(1) The meaning of “material information” under Article 188-2(2) of the Act

Article 18-2 (1) of the Act prohibits a certain person from using or allowing another person to use any material information that is not disclosed to the general public in connection with trading of securities of a juristic person. Paragraph (2) of the same Article refers to information that may seriously affect investors' investment decisions among the information falling under any subparagraph of Article 186 (1) and that is made before the juristic person concerned discloses such information to the public under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. Article 188-2 (2) of the Act provides that "any material information that is not disclosed to the general public" refers to information that falls under any of subparagraphs 1 of Article 186 (1) 3-1 and 186 (1) 9 of the Act. It is also reasonable to interpret that "any material information that is not disclosed to the general public" has a significant impact on investors' decisions on investment in accordance with Article 186 (1) 1 through 13 of the Act. It shall also be deemed that there is a significant impact on investors' decisions on investment in Article 186-19 of the Act.

(2) Judgment in this case

(A) However, even if the “material information” under Article 188-2(2) of the Act is not limited only to the information falling under any subparagraph of Article 186(1) of the Act, if it is recognized that certain information constitutes “material information” under Article 188-2(2) of the Act, it shall be carefully determined with regard to the following matters unless it is provided for in each subparagraph of Article 186(1) of the Act.

Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the principle of no crime without the law shall be the core of the provision of a law in the formal meaning of a legislative body, and furthermore, even if a law provides for a formal meaning of a law, it is possible to predict what the provision intends to punish and what punishment is, and accordingly, it is required to clearly define the elements of a crime so that anyone can decide his/her act. Therefore, examining the legislative purpose, its entire content, structure, etc. of the punishment law, it is necessary to find a reasonable interpretation standard to standardize or limit the types of acts constituting the elements of the punishment law as an understanding and judgment of ordinary people who have the ability to discern things properly, and it does not go against the principle of clarity in penal law (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do451, Apr. 11, 2003; 2003Do3600, Nov. 14, 2003).

As indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, Article 207-2(1)1 of the Act provides that the content of an act to be punished pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 188-2(1) of the Act is an act using “material information” as provided for in Article 188-2(1) of the Act. Article 188-2(2) of the Act provides that “Any information that may seriously affect investors’ judgment on investment among the information pertaining to facts, etc. falling under any subparagraph of Article 186(1) and that may be disclosed to a large number of persons under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.” As such, Article 186(1) of the Act provides for the duty to report listed corporations, etc., and provides for the detailed matters to be referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 12, and Article 188-2(1)3 of the Act provides for the detailed provisions that “if any, other than those matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree which may have a significant impact on corporate management, property, etc., it again delegated the said provision to the Enforcement Decree with subparagraph 1 through 7 of Article 8 of the Fair Trade Act.

On the other hand, Article 188-2(2) of the Act provides that "the information prior to disclosure to many people under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy is required." The term "material information" is interpreted as a naturally premised on "to be disclosed in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes" in the future. According to Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule, where a document stating the contents is reported or reported to the head of the Gu and the Exchange under the Acts and subordinate statutes, or where a document stating the contents is kept, or where information disclosed through newspapers, broadcasting, or electronic transmission media is disclosed in accordance with the said provision.

In full view of the purport of the principle of no punishment without the law and the contents of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes with regard to “material information” and “disclosure” as “material information,” the information must be deemed to constitute “material information,” under Article 188-2 of the Act. However, such information alone is insufficient. Furthermore, as a type of act that can be predicted by the general public, the contents of the information should be subject to reporting obligation under the detailed provisions of each subparagraph of Article 186(1) of the Act and each subparagraph of Article 69(1) of the Enforcement Decree, which are delegated in sequence by the former and each subparagraph of Article 83(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act and each subparagraph of the Financial Reduction Regulations, and even if not, it should be interpreted that there is no significant impact on the operating status of the juristic person, such as corporate management and property, and it should be interpreted that there is no disclosure of information under the penal law nor should it be more likely that the disclosure of information would be subject to reporting obligation under the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes.

(B) The nonpublic information held by the Defendants in this case is a three-party shareholder who holds 1,02,750 shares of IMG 1,002,750 which amount to 3.07% of its equity capital, by acquiring KRW 32,683,82,816,000 which is equivalent to 3.07% of its equity capital. Thus, Article 69 (1) 5 (g) of the Financial Supervisory Commission Regulation provides that "when there is a decision on the acquisition or disposal of shares and investment certificates of other corporations with 5/100 or more of its equity capital, the above information itself does not fall under the duty to report under the category of the investment shares shown in the law, and it does not constitute an important information as provided in Article 18-2 of the Act and subordinate statutes as of the time of the Defendants' act."

Therefore, the court below determined that the investment in other corporations is likely to have a significant impact on general investors' investment decisions. (1) At the time of this case, the domestic stock market was so-called boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom 205 due to the publication of the stem cell research paper on May 20, 2005, and (2) at the time of Jinyang boom 2005 to participate in the capital increase for boom 200, which was the first time in the Republic of Korea where Minyang 200, which was the first time in which Minyang 200, which was the first time in which Minyang 20, which was the first time in which the investors' investment decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making on the first time in Korea.

However, as in this case, in cases where a statute prescribes matters to be reported by stipulating the specific numerical value of the ratio of the amount of investment to equity capital in the case of investment in other corporations, it shall be strictly determined in order to ensure the predictability of the general public and on the basis of its numerical value. In addition, although interest in the bio-related items on the securities market at the time was concentrated, and there was a booming booming, such phenomenon is not deemed to objectively reflect the corporate business conditions or financial status in light of the circumstances where there is no apparent substance, and it cannot be an important material to determine whether the information constitutes “material information” even if it was temporarily known that the booming drug made investments in other corporations.

{더구나 ⓛ 황우석 교수가 2005. 5. 20.경 줄기세포 연구논문을 발표하는 등 이 사건 당시 이른바 바이오 관련 주식에 상당한 열기가 있었던 것은 사실이나, 그 반면에 한국경제신문 등 언론에서는 “황우석 교수팀의 연구 결과로 바이오 관련 주식에 대한 투자 열기가 확산되고 있지만 그 연구 결과가 상용화되기까지는 5년 이상의 기간이 필요한데다 변수들이 상존하는 만큼 개별종목의 직접적인 수혜를 기대하기 어려우며, 줄기세포연구의 급속한 진전은 성체 줄기세포나 기존 바이오 공학 제품을 무력화시킬 가능성도 크다”는 취지로 보도하는 등 당시 바이오 관련 종목 투자자들의 신중한 접근이 필요하다는 주장이 제기되기도 한 점( 피고인 1의 변호인이 제출한 참고자료 23), ② 진양제약의 2대 주주인 공소외 3은 진양제약이 엠젠바이오에 투자할 것을 알고 있었음에도 이 사건 신주인수계약 체결 직전인 2005. 6. 29. 및 6. 30. 이틀에 걸쳐 진양제약의 주식 20만 주를 매도한 점, ③ 주식회사 비트컴퓨터는 2005. 7. 28. DNA, RNA 칩을 이용한 암조기진단, 유전자감식, 제대혈, 줄기세포 등을 연구하는 바이오 업체인 굿젠 주식회사에게 15억 원을 투자하여 굿젠 주식회사의 국내 영업권 독점 제휴에 관한 협약을 체결하고 같은 날 이를 공시하였으나 오히려 그 주가가 하락한 것에 비추어( 피고인 1의 변호인이 제출한 참고자료 25) 이 사건 당시 바이오 관련 업체에 투자한다는 사실 자체만으로는 일반 투자자의 투자판단에 중대한 영향을 미치는 정보라고 보기 어려운 점, ④ 진양제약과 엠젠바이오 사이의 이 사건 신주인수계약 체결을 중재한 대우증권 직원 공소외 4는 당초 산업은행 측에 엠젠바이오에 투자할 것을 권유하였으나 산업은행 측에서 별다른 관심을 보이지 아니하여 진양제약을 소개한 것에 비추어 이 사건 당시 엠젠바이오에 대한 출자가 합리적인 투자자라면 누구든지 당해 출자법인의 주식의 거래에 관한 의사를 결정함에 있어서 상당히 중요한 가치를 지니는 것으로 인식할 수 있을 정도의 정보라고 단정하기도 어려운 점, ⑤ 피고인들을 검찰에 고발한 금융감독원 직원 공소외 5의 원심법정에서의 진술에 의하면, 금융감독원이 법 제188조의2 위반죄로 고발한 사건은 모두 법 제186조 제1항 각 호 에 해당하는 정보를 이용하거나 위 각 호에 해당하지 않더라도 법 제186조 제1항 각 호 에 준할 수 있을 정도로 평가될 수 있는 경우로 한정되었고, 이 사건에서와 같이 법령에서 구체적으로 수치를 특정하여 기준을 정하고 있는 사안에 대하여 그 기준에 미달함에도 ‘중요한 정보’로 보고 고발한 사건은 이 사건이 유일한 것인 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 비록 이 사건 당시 주식시장에 바이오 관련 종목에 대한 투자열기가 고조되어 있었고, 이 사건 정보로 인하여 진양제약의 주가가 상승하였다고 하더라도, 법령에서 정한 당해 법인과 관련된 투자 기준인 100분의 5에 상당히 미달하는 이 사건 정보를 일컬어 법 제188조의2 제2항 소정의 ‘중요한 정보’, 즉 ‘법인의 경영·재산 등에 관하여 중대한 영향을 미칠 사항으로서 합리적인 투자자의 투자판단에 중대한 영향을 미칠 수 있는 정보’로 단정할 수 없다.}

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case against the defendants, the violation of the prohibition of using undisclosed information under the premise that the information in this case is "important information" under Article 188-2 (2) of the Act shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it does not have proof of crime. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants 5 is just in its conclusion and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 5 by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and all appeals by the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 are justified, and the judgment of the court below against the above defendants is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows.

4. Judgment on the defendant 1, 2, 3, or 4

1. Defendant 1

(a)The officers or major shareholders of any KOSDAQ-listed corporation shall report to the Securities and Futures Commission and the Exchange, regardless of in whose name the shares of the corporation are owned on their own account within 10 days from the date on which they become officers or major shareholders, and, if there are changes in the number of their shares, by the tenth day of the month following the month in which such changes occur,

From April 10, 2004 to January 10, 2006, the original adjudication violated the duty to report the changes in the ownership status on 15 occasions in total, such as the statement of violation of duty to report, such as the statement of violation of duty to report, including Defendant 1’s shareholding status, etc.

(b) A person who comes to hold stocks of a KOSDAQ-listed corporation (referring to a case where the total number of stocks held by him and his specially related persons is not less than 5/100 of the total number of the stocks concerned) shall report to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Exchange the holding status and the purpose of holding the stocks within 5 days from that day, and where the holding ratio changes in excess of 1/100 of the total number of stocks of the corporation concerned, he shall report the changes to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Exchange within

From April 27, 2004 to October 29, 2005, the original adjudication violated the duty to report the changes in the stock holding situation by 9 times in total, as stated in attached Table 2, such as the statement of violation of duty to report, including Defendant 1’s stock holding, etc.).

2. Defendant 2

(a)The officers or major shareholders of any KOSDAQ-listed corporation shall report to the Securities and Futures Commission and the Exchange, regardless of in whose name the shares of the corporation are owned on their own account within 10 days from the date on which they become officers or major shareholders, and, if there are changes in the number of their shares, by the tenth day of the month following the month in which such changes occur,

From May 24, 2004 to February 10, 2006, the original adjudication violated the obligation to report the situation of ownership and the changes thereof 14 times in total, such as the statement of violation of obligation to report, such as the situation of possession by Defendant 2, etc.

(b) A person who comes to hold stocks of a KOSDAQ-listed corporation (referring to a case where the total number of stocks held by him and his specially related persons is not less than 5/100 of the total number of the stocks concerned) shall report to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Exchange the holding status and the purpose of holding the stocks within 5 days from that day, and where the holding ratio changes in excess of 1/100 of the total number of stocks of the corporation concerned, he shall report the changes to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Exchange within

From April 27, 2004 to October 29, 2005, the original adjudication violated the duty to report the changes in the number of stocks held by Defendant 2 on six occasions, such as the statement of violation of duty to report, including the statement of violation of duty to report, on the stock held by Defendant 2.

1. The defendant 1 and 2's trial and each statement at the original trial

1. Details of violation of duty to report on changes in holding and holding status;

1. Details of holding stocks or change thereof, and breach of duty;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting an offense (as to Defendants 1 and 2; hereinafter the same shall apply);

(a) Breach of duty to report the ownership status of stocks by executives and major stockholders: Article 210 subparagraph 5 of the Securities and Exchange Act and Article 188 (6) of the same Act;

(b) Breach of duty to report on the status of stocks held in bulk: Article 210 subparagraph 5-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act and Article 200-2 (1) of the same Act.

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention (Defendant 2);

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 was the president and the representative director of the Jinyang, a KOSDAQ-listed corporation, and Defendant 2 was the vice president of the Jinyang Yangyang, and Defendant 3 was the vice president of the Jinyang Yangyang, Defendant 2 was the above Defendant 2, Defendant 2 was the vice president of the Jin Yangyang, and Defendant 4 was the person who was employed as the representative director of the Jinyangyang, a vice-president of the Jin Yang Yang Yang Yangyang, and Defendant 5 was the representative director of Minyang.

Despite the fact that executives, employees, and major shareholders of a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ or persons who have entered into a contract with such corporation, who became aware of material information that is not disclosed to the general public in connection with the business of the corporation, or persons who have received such information from such persons in connection with the sale and purchase or other transaction of securities issued by such corporation, the Defendants cannot use such information. However, from 2004 to 206, the so-called “the balm crym" is high, due to research on the balm crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym crym 24% shares.

A. Defendant 1

From July 4, 2005 to July 5, 2005, before the above information was disclosed to the public, 90,000 shares of Jinyang was purchased through the borrowed account in the name of Non-Indicted 6 he had been in his usual management. The above information acquired a total of 347,902,208 won by selling the above shares after being disclosed to the public;

B. Defendant 2

From July 4, 2005 to July 5, 2005, before the above information was disclosed to the public, to purchase 80,000 shares of Jinyang by means of a borrowed account in the name of Nonindicted Party 7, he managed in his ordinary sense, and to acquire a total of 470,305,164 won by selling the above shares after the disclosure to the public;

C. Defendant 3

On July 7, 2005, 2005, after inquiring Nonindicted 2 of the situation of the operation of the Jinyang medicine and its business plan, etc., received specific information from the said Nonindicted 2 about the participation in the above Jinyang's capital increase for new stocks, and then purchased 65,596 shares of Jinyang drugs by using his own account on July 7, 2005 and July 11, 2005, prior to disclosure to the general public of the above information, 261,924,032 shares of Jinyang drugs by selling the above shares after disclosure to the general public, the above information acquired a total of 261,924,032 won;

D. Defendant 4

From July 4, 2005 to July 7, 2005, before the above information was disclosed to the general public, 30,150 shares of Jinyang was purchased through a borrowed account in the name of the wife Non-Indicted 8, which was managed in peace with the shares account in his own name, and acquired a total amount of 96,937,379 won including unrealized profits by selling part of the shares after the information was disclosed to the general public.

2. Determination:

As seen in the judgment on the grounds for appeal above, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

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

[Attachment] Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes: (Omission)

Judges signed (Presiding Judge)