The judgment below

The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Defendant

A, B, and.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A Sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 62 million) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C. In the case of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (hereinafter “Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”), the subject to whom benefits accrued from the account (Account Number Z, hereinafter “instant account”) in the name of Y is DC, which is the husband of Y, so the court below should exclude the profits accrued from the instant account in calculating the profits that the Defendant acquired from the instant unfair trading. However, the court below convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the profits accrued from the instant account or the profits accrued from the instant unfair trading.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D The sentence of the lower court (long-term two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

C'profit from a violation's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles refers to the profit gained by the actor from the violation. In the event that multiple persons jointly commit an unfair trade act such as manipulation, profit from the crime refers to the profit acquired by the whole accomplice who has participated in the crime, and it does not include the profit accrued to a third party who has not participated in the crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7622, Apr. 28, 201). The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court; and ① DC, a husband of Y, receives and operates the instant account from the Defendant around 2010.