logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.04.05 2017노1727
자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 50,000,00.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”)’s share price has risen not only from the Defendants’ market price manipulation but also from other factors such as the possibility of the company’s growth, V’s investment in KRW 5 billion, etc. As such, the amount of benefits accrued therefrom should be deducted from the amount of unfair benefits of the Defendants. However, since the prosecutor did not prove any assertion thereon, it is difficult to calculate the amount of unfair benefits in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the amount of unfair benefits, thereby finding the Defendants guilty of having acquired an unjust benefit of KRW 206,988,147 due to the market price operation.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (the Defendants’ respective fines of KRW 50 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The profits accrued from the operation of the market price under the Act on the Operation of Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets include the unrealistic profits corresponding to the realization profits realized in the course of trading stocks. However, solely based on the circumstances cited by the lower court, the Defendants, F, and H (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) committed an act of operating the market price at around May 26, 2014 through August 7, 2014 and around November 6, 2014 through November 27, 2014.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on February 2, 198

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendants’ defense, recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, was involved in the market price fluctuation due to the instant market price operation; (b) the market dominance during the period of market control such as F; and (c) G at the end of 2014.

arrow