[Defendant A] The guilty part of the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act for the Defendants (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”).

(A) Violation A) The act of converting the existing monthly rent contract between R and N (in the case of a corporation, hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) into the pre-tax agreement with R does not constitute extension of credit as direct and indirect transactions involving credit risk in the transaction prohibited by Article 34(2) of the Capital Markets Act. However, the judgment below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) At the time of the instant case, T’s financial status was good, and R’s building also excluded from senior mortgage and right to lease on a deposit basis, the remaining value is not less than KRW 30 billion. Thus, although N’s purchase of corporate bills (CP) or conversion of the existing monthly rent contract into a pre-tax lease contract cannot be deemed an act that entails credit risk under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the lower court’s conviction on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, upon delegation of Article 34(2) proviso of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the act falling under each subparagraph of Article 38(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act, which provides for the type of credit extension permitted under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, does not per se undermine the soundness of financial investment business entities. Thus, it is unnecessary to separately determine whether

Therefore, if N purchased commercial papers within the limit of 8% of its equity capital, it constitutes legitimate credit extension, but the court below found the guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act for Defendant A (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”).

W. W.C.