All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Part 7 of the lower judgment’s 7th page “AC” shall be deleted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable. (The sentence of the lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years, one year and six months, one hundred and twenty hours, a community service, and a collection of ten million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as follows.

(1) The Defendant did not have conspired to commit a crime of running the instant market price.

In other words, with regard to the crime of running the market price of this case, it cannot be recognized that there is a conspiracy between F and the Defendant, between the Defendant and A, between the Defendant and the O or P, so the Defendant cannot be recognized as a joint principal offender for the crime of running the market price of this case

In addition, the court below found the defendant guilty and used the prosecutor's statement protocol against AC which has no admissibility of evidence as evidence, and found the criminal facts by changing the subject who requested the market price differently from the facts charged without changing the indictment to the defendant without changing the indictment.

② It is not clear whether each transaction listed in the attached list of crimes in the original judgment constitutes a market price manipulation transaction in violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and it is not a transaction at a level that can be recognized as a purpose of market price operation.

2) The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of the suspension of execution in one year and six months of imprisonment, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too uncomfortable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant conspired to commit the instant market price manipulation, such as requesting and paying the price for the market price of shares A,O, etc. of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) as stated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant conspired to commit the instant market price manipulation.

The decision was determined.

(1)