The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Defendant A, or D

A. The Defendants’ violation of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter “Capital Market Act”) found Defendant A and D guilty on the crime of violation of the Capital Market Act with respect to the crime of violation of the Capital Market Act with the content that, as stated in the facts charged, Defendant A and D conspired to artificially increase the share price of the stock company G (hereinafter “G”), thereby controlling the market price by artificially raising the share price of the stock company as stated in the facts charged, and obtained profits from disposing of the shares acquired through the exercise of the securities issued by G’s new stocks in the process, the lower court found Defendant A and D guilty with all of the part

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in breach of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine or omitting judgment

B. Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) (Fraud) by the lower court convicted Defendant A of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the

2. Defendant C’s assertion that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts, hearing failure, etc. in determining the sentencing constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty or imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than ten years.