2013Gohap1468 Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act

A

A new type of prosecution (prosecution), Kim Jong-Un (Trial)

Law Firm (B)

Attorney in charge C. D

June 20, 2014

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Criminal facts

On November 16, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor and three years of suspended execution due to a violation of the Commercial Act at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 16, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 24, 2013.

1. Status of the defendant;

The defendant is the co-manager and the president of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "E"), and F is the master of the share price manipulation, G is the largest shareholder and the representative director of E, and H is the co-manager and the chairman at the request of the defendant.

2. Joint crimes committed with the accused, F, G and H;

A. A. Around March 2011, the background of the crime and the public invitation relationship between E and H, the Defendant, a co-manager of E, was to obtain the right of domestic bio-production distribution business from J, which was discontinued in E. A. On May 201, when I was detained due to the suspicion of K funding embezzlement, the Defendant’s share in the management right was transferred to G, the Defendant of which was aware of, and from June 201, G, the representative director of E, H, and the Defendant, as co-chairperson, jointly managed E.

On June 201, the Defendant, who was appointed as the representative director, committed not only in the Republic of Korea but also in the Republic of Korea and also in the Republic of Korea, was promised to bring about the right of distribution of marine water, and therefore, it was necessary to continue to maintain the close relationship with G with G. Since G acquired the Defendant’s shares as a broker and took office as E’s representative director while acquiring the Defendant’s shares as a broker, G acquired the management right and shares with other person’s capital, such as the bond company’s funds, which are not one’s own capital, and therefore

이에 피고인은 주가조작 전문가인 F가 출소하자 G, H와 함께 E 주가를 인위적으로 부양하여 부당한 이득을 취득하려고 마음먹고 속칭 주가조작 주포 F에게 시세조종자금으로 1억 2,000만 원을 교부하면서 E 주식시세조종을 요청하였고, F는 주변의 지인들에게 투자자문사 설립을 가장하면서 "자금과 계좌를 주면 매월 정산 시 10% 이상 수익을 보장해 주겠다"고 말하여 타인의 증권계좌와 주가조작 자금을 모집한 후 위 계좌들을 이용하여 E 주식에 대하여 소위 '뻥' 주문이나 고가매수 주문 등 시세조종성 주문을 내어 E 주식을 시세조종하기로 순차 공모하였다.

B. Price manipulation of stocks E (from July 29, 201 to September 23, 2011)

The Defendant, along with the representative director G and the president H, offered KRW 120 million to F of the price manipulation, and offered F of the price of the E shares to operate the price of the E shares and to make unjust profits by operating the price of the E shares. The Defendant, from July 29, 201 to September 23, 2011, led F of submitting an order for purchase of the E shares 11,528,775 shares using a total of 107 borrowed accounts such as L/C accounts solicited by F to submit an order for sale of 6,861,72 shares, and controlled the market price as follows in the process of requiring F of submitting an order for sale of the 6,861,72 shares.

1) Market price manipulation by conspiracy and disguised trade

No one shall sell and purchase securities in collusion with another person to sell and sell the securities at the same price or at an agreed value as he/she sells and purchases them at the same time with intent to mislead another person to make a wrong judgment with regard to the sale and purchase of listed securities, and shall sell and purchase securities without intent to transfer his/her right in trading securities. In selling and buying securities, no one shall do any false act with intent to trade securities without intent to transfer the right.

At around 09:20:53 on August 18, 201, the Defendant: (a) ordered F to purchase KRW 4,000 shares E from F (IP address 0) via a securities account (Account Number N) of the branch office M (IP address 0); (b) around 09:22:17 on August 18, 201, the Defendant issued an order to sell KRW 5,920 shares E from F (IP address R) to KRW 2,800 per share using a securities account (Account Number Q) in the name of Samsung Securities Branch P; and (c) on August 1, 201, the Defendant conspired to sell KRW 4,00 shares at KRW 2,80 per share on the same day after one minute 24:22:17, and entered into an agreement with F/L from August 1, 201 to 9:30 on August 29, 2019.

As a result, the Defendant conspiredd with F, G, H, etc. about a total of 699 times between the market price manipulation-related accounts, and made the most competitive and fictitious trade with 109,930 shares.

2) Market price manipulation based on actual transactions

No one shall make, independently or in collusion with other persons, transactions in the securities market, creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading or causing a fluctuation in the market price with the intention of inducing anyone to make transactions of securities.

(A) high-priced purchase

At around 09:08:47 August 1, 201, the Defendant submitted an order to purchase 4,00 shares at the price of 1,255 won per 5 won per 5 won higher than the immediately preceding price, and immediately purchased 1,250 won from 1,250 to 1,250 won per 1,250 won per 4,255 won per 5 won per 1,255 won per 1,255 won per 4,00 won per 1,255 won per 1,250 won per 1,250 won per 1,250 won per 1,250 won per 1,250 won per 1,250 won per 1,250 won per 29, from July 29, 201 to 23, and submitted an order to purchase 205, 25, 274, 275, 275

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with F, G, H, etc. about 14,485 to submit an order for high-priced purchase of 2,253,700 shares viaout the total amount of 14,485, thereby making a mistake or making a change in the market price of E shares to the effect that the transaction of E shares constitutes

(b)to purchase small quantities;

At around 14:22:56 on July 29, 201, the Defendant: (a) ordered F to sell 1,235 won per share by selling 1,235 won per share to purchase 1,235 won in a securities account (IP address X) in the name of 5 branch offices of Korea Investment Securities; (b) submitted 1,225 won in the name of 1,225 won in the name of 1,225 won in the name of 1,235 won in the name of 1,235 won in the name of 1,235 won in the name of 1,235 won in the name of 1,235 won in the market; and (c) submitted orders to purchase 1,200 won in the name of 1,235 won in the market; and (d) submitted orders to other investors to purchase 1,2660 days in the number of orders and 270 days in the attached list through 236,270 days in the same year.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with F, G, H, etc. on a total of 2,764 occasions in order to make a small volume of 1,206,720 shares, thereby making a mistake or making a change in the market price of E shares as if the transaction of E shares was sexually active.

C) Order for purchase

At around 09:01:15 on August 1, 201, the Defendant issued an order to purchase 1,245 won per 1,200 won per 1,200 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per purchase, and the purchase price per 1,00 won per Y (Account number A), so that it appears that the purchase has a strong purchase capacity, and 1,210 won per 2,00 won per 1,00 won per 2,000 won per 1,290

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with F, G, H, etc. about a total of 863,720 shares purchase orders, thereby making a mistake or making a change in market price as the E shares transaction constitute a sexual depression.

D) Main text of Ho processing0

At around 14:04:19 on July 29, 201, the Defendant submitted an order for purchase of KRW 1,220 per share 560 per share in order to cover 1,220 won under the circumstances of heading 1,215 won and 1,225 won per share 1,310 won and 560 won per share from July 29, 201 to September 23, 201, the Defendant submitted an order for purchase of KRW 376 by the same method from July 29, 201 to September 23, 2011, including submission of order processing 334,160 shares in attached Table 5, such as submission of order processing 376 times in total as shown in attached Table 5.

As a result, the Defendant, in collusion with F, G, H, etc., provided 334,160 p.m. order for a total of 376 times, thereby making a mistake or making a change in the market price or market price of E shares as if the transaction of E shares was sexually active.

E) On August 9, 2011, the Defendant ordered F to take an order for purchase of the stocks of E at KRW 1,910 per share price at KRW 2,195 won and KRW 80,330 per share price from August 1, 201 to September 22, 201 of the same year, such as submitting an order for market share price of KRW 154,270 per share from August 1, 201 to September 22, 201, under the circumstances where the number of securities account (IP address X) in the name of the Korea Securities Agency (Account Number AE) was simultaneously held in the name of 08:16:49, a total of 25 times as shown in the attached Table 6.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with F, G, H, etc. about 154,270 market share trading orders throughout a total of 25 times, thereby making a mistake or making a change in market price as if the transaction of E shares was sexually active.

F) Paper paper order

On July 29, 201, the Defendant ordered F to issue an order for closing 304,900 SP over a total of 70 times, as shown in attached Table 7, from July 29, 2011 to September 21, 201, where the purchase order of E shares is 1,240 won per share, and the expected number of 15,000 won is 1,240 won per share, and the Defendant issued an order for closing 240 won from July 29, 201 to September 21, 201.

As a result, the Defendant in collusion with F, G, H, etc. 304,90 plenarys over a total of 70 times.

In order, as the transaction of E shares constitutes a active trading, there was an error or a change in the market price of E shares.

3) Undue gains

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with F, G, H, obtained unjust enrichment of KRW 3,195,107,906 by artificially raising 198.4% from KRW 1,225 won (the closing price on July 28, 2011) through price manipulation orders for the purpose of creating a false judgment or inducing another person to make a false judgment. In addition, the Defendant acquired unjust enrichment of KRW 3,195,107,906 from KRW 1,255 won (the closing price on September 7, 2011).

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness AF, AG and AH;

1. Each legal statement of the witness F, BV, and X;

1. Each prosecutor's examination protocol concerning F (one to four times);

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning AH;

1. Each written answer to AF, AI, and AG;

1. Each statement in the F, AB, V, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AMF, AF, AP, Q, AR, ATR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AX, AY, AZ, BA, and B, and each statement in the F;

1. 수사보고(E '상장폐지' 확인 보고), 수사보고(E 상장폐지 등에 따른 피해자들의 모임인 'E 주주' 개설 확인 보고), 수사보고(E 및 BC 시세조종 사용 '혐의계좌' 내역 첨부보고), 수사보고(금감원이 E 등 시세조종 혐의사실 조사시 작성 '영업점단말' 자료 첨부보고), 수사보고(E 및 BC 일자별 시세조정성 주문 요약 및 시장지배력 자료 첨부보고), 수사보고(피의자 F 등 E 및 BC 시세조종에 따른 부당이득금 현황 첨부보고), 수사보고 (피의자 F 등이 E 및 BC 주식 시세조종에 사용한 혐의계좌들간 'IP 연계성 자료 첨부 보고), 수사보고(E 대표 G의 피의자 F에 대한 시세조종자금 지급사실 확인자료 첨부보고), 수사보고(피의자 F 등의 E 및 BC 주식 시세조종행위 개요), 수사보고('삥 '매수주문에 의한 주가조작 내역 첨부보고), 각 수사보고(피의자 F 관련 고가매수 등 시세조종 주문내역 첨부보고), 수사보고(피의자 FE 및 BC 시세조종 관련 실제 관리계좌에 따른 부당이득 현황 첨부보고), 수사보고(피의자 A의 소위 '모찌'계좌주 BD에 대한 '지불각서' 첨부보고), 수사보고(E 공동경영인 피의자 A의 피의자 F에 대한 시세조종자금 지급사실 확인자료 첨부보고), 수사보고(피의자 A 사용 BE번호 사용 경위 확인보고), 수사보고(G, BF, H의 부당이득)

1. A certified copy of the register (E), output (E), E-suspected account list, E-suspected account list, end of the business shop, market dominance data by E date, E market dominance data by date, E unjust enrichment status, BD (Litigation Documents), E IPMAP data, EIPP data, E IP details, E order details, and E market manipulation orders;

Details of orders, E market price manipulation reduction orders, F unjust enrichment calculation (E), F Direct Management Account Calculation (E), complaint (Plaintiff BD, Defendant BG and A), and flow chart of the payment of market price manipulation funds

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Investigation report (the confirmation report, etc. of the suspect A's separate case date, etc.);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 43(2)2, 443(1)4 and 5, and 176(1)1, 2, 3, and 176(2)1 of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013); Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Blanket)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (trade between the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and the violation of the Commercial Act for which judgment

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. Determination on admissibility of evidence

(a) Probative value of each question answer sheet (the defendant, the AF, the AI, and the AG) prepared by the investigator of the Financial Supervisory Service;

1) Summary of the assertion

According to Article 427 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, a public official who belongs to the Financial Services Commission has the right to investigate persons suspected of market price manipulation and has the authority to examine them. On the other hand, while the investigator belonging to the Financial Supervisory Service (the defendant is using the term "investigative Team", although the legal accurate name is a "investigative Team", so the investigator's order is below, and Article 427-2 (1) of the same Act does not have the right to examine persons suspected of market price manipulation. However, the investigator of the Financial Supervisory Service has no authority to examine persons suspected of market price manipulation by attending the investigating State of the Financial Supervisory Service. However, once such questioning is conducted by a person without the authority to examine, he is an illegal examination. This examination is conducted by a person without the authority to do so. Although the right to refuse to make a statement before the defendant makes a statement as an exercise of the right to investigate, such examination should have not gone through such procedures, and therefore, all parts of the written statement prepared by each investigator and the prosecutor's answer submitted as evidence are inadmissible evidence.

2) Determination on the above assertion

With respect to the investigation under paragraph (1) of Article 176 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), where there is a violation of the Act or an order or disposition under the Act or this Act, or where it is deemed necessary for the protection of investors or sound trade practice, the Securities and Futures Commission may order a person suspected of a violation or any other related person to submit a report or materials for reference, or may require the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service to investigate books, documents and other materials (Article 426 (1) of the Act), and may require a person suspected of a violation or any other related person to submit a statement concerning the facts and circumstances of the investigation, to appear to make a statement concerning the investigation, to present books, documents and other materials necessary for the investigation (Article 2 (1) of the Act), and where it falls under any of the subparagraphs of attached Table 15, corrective orders or take other measures prescribed by Presidential Decree, Article 376 (1) 11 through 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the Financial Services Commission may notify the institution or investigation agency of the Act or take other related measures under paragraph (2).

In full view of the above provisions, the investigator belonging to the Financial Supervisory Service shall be construed as having the authority to request the suspect and the related persons to appear and make necessary investigations so that the Securities and Futures Commission may take measures prescribed by law such as corrective order and accusation against the investigation agency with respect to the manipulation of stock prices. In this case, the investigator’s aforementioned investigation activities such as the investigator B and AH are lawful.

In addition, the right to notify the right to remain silent cannot be derived under Article 12(2) of the Constitution, and legislative support is required to recognize the right to remain silent (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5441, Jan. 16, 2014). In other words, the Act or relevant regulations do not have any provision regarding the notification of the right to remain silent in investigating the suspicion of market manipulation crime committed by the investigator of the Financial Supervisory Service. It goes beyond the passive obligation guaranteed by the Constitution not to infringe the right not to be forced to make a statement unfavorable to himself/herself, and it is a legislative policy issue whether the Financial Supervisory Service imposes the duty to actively notify the person to be polled under the suspicion of market manipulation to the members of the Financial Supervisory Service, and even according to each of the above evidence, the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service led the relevant investigator to make a false statement in compliance with the facts charged of the instant case, or distorted or distorted the written answer, such as inducing him/her to make a prior representation, or making a prior representation of the related person's statements.

Considering the fact that no data can be found in light of the fact that there is no evidence to view, in the instant case, each of the instant answers cannot be deemed unlawful or inadmissible solely on the ground that the Financial Supervisory Service’s failure to notify the person to be polled and B of the right to remain silent during the investigation process.

3) As to the provision on the basis of granting admissibility of each question and answer document prepared by the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service

A) Whether the questioning and answer constitutes an interrogation protocol or statement prepared by investigation agency other than the prosecutor under Article 312(3) and (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

In light of the following, each of the questions and answers of this case prepared by the investigator of the Financial Supervisory Service cannot be seen as the interrogation protocol or statement prepared by investigation agencies other than prosecutor.

(1) "Investigation agency other than prosecutor" under Article 312 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to a judicial police officer under Article 196 of the Criminal Procedure Act and a person who performs his/her duties under other Acts, and Article 312 (4) of the same Act specifies "inspection and judicial police officer as the person preparing the protocol". However, there is no provision that grants authority to perform the duties

② As seen earlier, the Act provides that the investigator of the Financial Supervisory Service may issue a corrective order, warning, caution, accusation, or notification to an investigation agency in the event of a violation of the Act, and notification to the relevant agency or investigation agency in the event of a violation of other Acts, and grants only the authority of "request for investigation or accusation, which is not an investigation" to a member of the investigative agency.

(3) As seen earlier, the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service may demand the suspect or person concerned to submit a written statement on the facts and status of the matters to be investigated, to appear to make a statement on the matters to be investigated, and to submit books, documents and other articles necessary for the investigation. However, such demand is merely an investigation to secure basic materials for requesting an investigation or filing a complaint, not in investigation procedures, and may not be subject to compulsory arrest, detention, etc. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the investigator of the Financial Supervisory Service falls under an investigation agency.

B) Existence of admissibility of the written answer

Each question answer to the defendant and AF, AI, and AG is recorded by a person other than the investigative agency stipulated in Article 313(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, with the statement of the defendant and AF, AI, and AG, with the signature or seal of the above person, and the authenticity of the statement is recognized by each statement in this court, and the defendant also has the authenticity of the written answer to the defendant.

4) As to the admissibility of the derivative evidence, such as each prosecutor's statement of AH, etc.

As seen earlier, since the investigator belonging to the Financial Supervisory Service prepares each of the above questions and answers within the scope of his/her authority through an investigation, they cannot be deemed illegal collection evidence, and the prosecutor's protocol, etc. derived from the content of the protocol is not the same as the evidence of collection of illegality. Thus, the first defendant's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2. Judgment on the facts charged of this case

In light of the following circumstances, the defendant, in collusion with F, is deemed to have committed an act of price manipulation of E shares in collusion with F.

A. The relationship between the defendant and F

1) F’s E motive for stock collection

① In full view of the fact that F makes a consistent statement from investigative agencies to this court that E shares were gathered upon the Defendant’s request, ② from July 200 to July 2000 upon the Defendant’s request, F, which is the “stock price manipulation” of this case, appears to have gathered E shares upon the Defendant’s request. In full view of the fact that F, upon the Defendant’s request, had been made in the name account in which F used for the collection of E shares, there was almost no transaction details.

(ii)F’s price manipulation funds for E stocks;

① The F statements from the investigative agency to this court that it received KRW 100 million from the Defendant. Although there is a difference in the statement regarding the receipt of money from the Defendant, as to the fact that the funds were received from the Defendant and the KRW 100 million were used as market price manipulation funds, the F has consistently made it reliable. ② After receiving the Defendant’s request for the purchase of E shares, the Defendant stated that he was in need of 3-4 office expenses and their office expenses and KRW 20 million for purchase of BI office rent and Nompt, etc., the Defendant stated that KRW 100,000 was consistently paid from the investigative agency to the Defendant for KRW 100,000,000 from KRW 20,000,000,000,000 won for KRW 100,000,000,000 won for 10,0000,000 won for 20,000,000 won for 10,000,000 won for 1.

According to the records of this case, the defendant argued to the effect that some of the above 10 million won check was presented in the name of BP, which was re-issued in small amount, and that "the defendant provided F with KRW 20 million to F and used AF for the purchase cost of Nowon-gu, etc." is not reliable. However, although the above 10 million check was already presented in BO payment, the defendant's statement of F and AF cannot be ruled out, considering the relationship with F and the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant's status in E, it appears that F were provided with each of the above checks by the defendant, and it cannot be found that F were provided otherwise by another person, and the credibility of AF's check cannot be ruled out solely on the circumstances that AF had already been provided for the purchase of Nowon-do checks, etc. for the purpose of HO payment.

3) Contact relationship between the Defendant and F

① In full view of the fact that the Defendant visited F’s BI office twice a week during the instant market price manipulation period, ② the number of times from July 31, 201 to September 30 of the same year before and after the said market price manipulation period was 1,025 times from the Defendant’s cell phone to the F mobile phone, and 363 times from the F mobile phone to the Defendant’s cell phone use, and the number of times the number of times the Defendant sent from the F mobile phone to the Defendant’s cell phone was 363 times, and the Defendant and F during the instant market price manipulation period, it appears that F exchanged with the intent by frequent contact with the Defendant at the time of operating E’s stock market price.

(b) Status of defendants in E;

① From June 201, the Defendant was called “the president” from June 201, when G was the representative director, and was involved in E’s work for J Distribution, including employment of E employee, discussions on the level of wages for E employee, Company disclosure, etc. ② The Defendant transferred KRW 730 million out of the subscription price of new shares to B Q account substantially operated by the Defendant, ③ AG, a director in charge of finance, was charged with KRW 1130 million out of the above KRW 11330 million out of the above KRW 11330 million out of the above KRW 1.3 billion out of the above KRW 1.3 billion in the check to the Defendant, and the Defendant stated that he again paid KRW 130 million out of that amount to KRW 130 million to the Defendant during the period of use of the funds during which he was actually involved in the operation and management of the E.

C. Circumstances after the representative director G escape

1) In full view of the following facts: (a) from an investigative agency to an investigation agency, the Defendant owned the shares of E; (b) after G escape, the Defendant stated that he was unable to sell the shares of E; and (c) after G escape, the Defendant appears in the company after G locking, and that he was asserting that he had the shares of E; and (c) the Defendant provided a portion on the part of BR upon delegation of the voting right of approximately KRW million when a temporary general meeting of shareholders is held on November 20, 201; (d) the Defendant, as the creditors and shareholders of the company were aware of, is likely to have been involved in the company’s situation with a deep interest with E share, not in a bona fide position after G escape; and (e) was involved in the company’s situation with E share price.

2) In addition, (1) the Defendant: (a) purchased shares of E during the price manipulation period of this case; (b) prepared a letter of payment stating that the Defendant would be liable for losses incurred by E stock investment to BD twice; and (c) the Defendant continued to contact with F by visiting the F Office located in BI with the AI, which was highly likely to receive E after G escape; and (d) in light of the fact that the Defendant continued to contact with F Office after G escape, the Defendant does not seem to have any connection with the price manipulation of the E in this case.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and not more than thirty years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] The third-class penalty (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won), which infringes on fairness in the capital market (market manipulation) of securities and financial crime group

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment with labor for not less than three years, but not more than six years

3. Determination of sentence: The act of stock price manipulation by three and a half years of imprisonment not only damages the trust in the stock market and prevents the sound development of the capital market, but also causes unexpected damages to many and unspecified general investors, and it is highly necessary to punish E as a result of the act of stock price manipulation in this case. Although there were several statements from the persons concerned who participated in the stock price manipulation in this case, it is inevitable to sentence sentence against the defendant in that it continues to be a single criminal act by asserting that the defendant would not be able to understand and avoid responsibilities of the defendant, even though the defendant made a statement from the persons concerned who participated in the stock price manipulation in this case.

However, there are no criminal records of the defendant with regard to manipulation of market prices, and the fact that it is necessary to consider equality in the case of concurrent crimes between the violation of the Commercial Act and the violation of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, etc. with respect to which a judgment has become final and conclusive, shall be considered as favorable circumstances to the defendant. In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Yang Sung-tae

Judges Shin Young-ju