Defendant 1 and four others

Joh Jeong-hee

Attorney Park Jon-hun et al.

Defendants 1, 2, and 3 shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, by a fine of 20,000,000 won, respectively.

However, with respect to Defendant 1, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 4 Company and Defendant 5 Company are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant 1 is the largest shareholder of Defendant 4 Company (hereinafter “Defendant 4 Company”), the representative director of Defendant 4 Company and Defendant 5 Company (hereinafter “Defendant 5 Company”), and the ○○ Group’s chairman composed of 14 affiliated companies including the above Company.

Defendant 2 holds office as the president of Defendant 4 company, and is a person in charge of fund management, etc., Defendant 3 holds office from around November 30, 2002 to around November 30, 2007 as Defendant 5’s former office, and takes charge of overall management, etc.

On January 31, 2007, three affiliated companies of the ○○ Group, including Defendant 4 and Defendant 5, were incorporated into ○○ Group’s affiliated companies by acquiring 51% of the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 (Defendant 4 Company 15.3%, Defendant 5 Company 20.4%, and Nonindicted Company 6 Company 15.3%) and management rights from the claim group of Nonindicted Company 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 1”) which was a securities market listed company during the workshop program.

1. The co-principal of the defendant 1, 2, and 3;

A. At the time of around April 2007, Defendant 1 traded the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 at KRW 2,700 with a face value of KRW 5,00,00 with a face value below KRW 5,00, and determined that the share price was low, Defendant 1 ordered Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 to open a borrowed-name securities account and to trade Nonindicted Company 1’s shares by using the funds of the account and its affiliated companies so that the share price increase.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 had the intention to support the share price by opening a borrowed name account according to Defendant 1’s instructions and trading the shares of Nonindicted Company 1 through a conspiracy transaction, high-priced purchase order, etc. using the funds of affiliated companies.

B. From April 30, 2007 to August 31, 2007, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 opened a borrowed account in the name of Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8; Defendant 3 opened a borrowed account in the name of Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 10; Defendant 3 received the stocks account opened in the name of Nonindicted 4, an affiliated company of ○○ Group (hereinafter “Nonindicted 4”); and received the stocks account in the name of Nonindicted 4, an affiliated company of ○○ Group (hereinafter “Nonindicted 4”).

1) For the purpose of creating a misleading appearance of active trading or causing another person to make a false judgment with respect to the sale and purchase transaction of listed securities, Nonindicted Co. 1 entered into a total of 344,690 shares of the Nonindicted Co. 1 through 158 times, such as the ○○ Group most listed in the annexed Form ○○ Group and the details of the collusion;

2) For the purpose of inducing the sale and purchase transaction at the securities market or the KOSDAQ market, an elevated purchase order against 239,840 shares via 269 times as shown in the attached Form ○○ Group’s order for purchase and sale, and an order for the market price of 22,020 shares via 327 times as shown in the attached Form ○○ Group’s order for purchase and sale, and an order for the purchase and sale of 142,870 shares via 66 times as shown in the attached Form ○○ Group’s order for purchase and sale of 142,870 shares via 327 times as shown in the attached Form ○ Group’s order for purchase and sale.

In total 820 times, 4,183,074,512 won of the market price manipulation orders were obtained.

2. Defendant 1’s sole criminal conduct

A. Breach of duty to report on possession in bulk by Defendant 4

A person who comes to hold stocks, etc. of a stock-listed corporation shall report to the Financial Services Commission and the Exchange on the status of holding, purpose of holding, details of major contracts on the holding, etc. within five days from such date, and where the total number of stocks, etc. is changed by at least 1% of the total number of the stocks, etc., he/she shall report the changes

1) On January 31, 2007, the Defendant, as the representative director of Defendant 4 Company, held 1,094,842 shares of Nonindicted Company 1 (15.3%) and did not report it to the Financial Services Commission, etc. within five days since the total number of shares of Nonindicted Company 1 held on April 14, 2008 increased by 1.76% compared to the number of shares held in the immediately preceding report.

2) On August 21, 2008, the Defendant, as the representative director of Defendant 4 Company, did not report the total number of Nonindicted Company 1’s shares owned by Defendant 4 decreased by 1.19% compared to the number of shares owned by Defendant 4 immediately before the immediately preceding report, which was reported to the Financial Services Commission, etc. within five days.

B. Breach of duty to report stocks owned by Defendant 5

Any officer or major stockholder of a stock-listed corporation shall report to the respective Securities and Futures Commission and the Exchange the details of stocks owned by him on his own account regardless of in whose name the accounts stand in, and where there is a change in the number of stocks owned by him, by the 10th of the month following the month in which such change occurs.

As the representative director of Defendant 5, on January 31, 2007, the Defendant acquired the shares 1,459,79,791 (20.4%) of Nonindicted Company 1 and became a major shareholder. Since there was a change in the ownership status from December 4, 2007 to December 31, 2007, the Defendant did not report it to the Securities and Futures Commission, etc. within 10 days from that time, although it was reported to the Securities and Futures Commission, and did not report it within 10 days from that time until October 10, 208, even if the shares owned were changed over nine times in total, such as the violation of the obligation to report shares owned by Defendant 5.

3. Defendant 4 company

(a) Market price manipulation;

Defendant 1, the representative director of the Defendant, obtained the unjust profits of KRW 4,183,074,512 from April 30, 2007 to August 31, 2007 by doing market price manipulation transactions over a total of 820 occasions as set forth in the above paragraph (1).

(b) Breach of reporting on possession in bulk;

On January 31, 2007, the Defendant held 1,094,842 shares (15.3%) of the instant company, and reported to the Financial Services Commission, etc. within five days, since the total number of shares of the instant company held twice as of April 14, 2008 and August 21, 2008, as of August 21, 2008, the total number of shares of the instant company held twice was 1% or more than that of the immediately preceding shares, and Defendant 1, the representative director of the instant company, did not report it.

4. Defendant 5

(a) Market price manipulation;

Defendant 1, the representative director of the Defendant, obtained the unjust profits of KRW 4,183,074,512 in total by doing market price manipulation transactions between April 30, 2007 and August 31, 2007, together 820 times from around August 31, 207.

(b) Breach of duty to report stocks;

On January 31, 2007, the Defendant acquired shares 1,459,791 (20.4%) of the instant company and became a major shareholder, and Defendant 1, the representative director of the instant company, was not reported within the prescribed period, even though the ownership status of the instant company was changed on nine occasions from December 4, 2007 to December 31, 207, as described in paragraph 2.b).

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 1, 2, and 3 in part;

1. Defendant 3’s legal statement;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 11

1. Each report on the questioning of persons under internal investigation against Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 5

1. An investigation report (report on the results of investigation and a report on the results of processing), an investigation report (report on the confirmation of the representative director of Defendant 4 Company), an investigation report (report on the confirmation of the period of office of Defendant 2’s representative director), an investigation report (resolution of accounts managed by Defendant 1, 3, and 2), the rate of daily market price manipulation orders by shares of Nonindicted Party 1 Company using the above account, details of high-priced purchase orders, details of orders for the purchase of stocks, details of the best and best trade orders, and unjust enrichment confirmation report);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Article 207-2(1)2 and (2)2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8315 of Mar. 29, 2007 and repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 8315 of Feb. 4, 2009; hereinafter “former Securities and Exchange Act”) and Article 188-4(1)1, 2, 3, and 188-4(2)1 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act [Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259 of Apr. 15, 2010), Article 210 subparag. 5 and Article 18(6) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by the former Securities and Exchange Act)

(b) Defendant 2 and Defendant 3: Each of Articles 207-2(1)2 and (2)2, 188-4(1)1, 2, and 30 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)

(c) Defendant 4 company: Articles 215(2), 207-2(1)2, 188-4(1)1, 2, and 3, and (2)1 (including the manipulation of market price), Articles 215, 210(5-2, and 200-2(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (a violation of the duty to report, such as large possession)

(d) Defendant 5 company: Articles 215, 207-2 (1) 2, 188-4 (1) 1, 2, and 3, and 188-4 (2) 1 (limited to the manipulation of market price), Articles 215, 210 subparagraph 5, and 188 (6) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (limited to the violation of the obligation to report the stock owned);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to manipulation of the largest penalty);

(b) Defendant 4 and Defendant 5: The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the maximum amount of crimes for each violation of the Securities and Exchange Act due to the largest manipulation of market prices]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 1, 2, and 3: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1, 2, and 3: each Criminal Code Article 62(1)(The following consideration is made for the reasons for sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 4 Company and Defendant 5 Company: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant 1, 2, 4, and 5

A. The assertion that there was no objective of market price manipulation

1) The assertion

Since more than 2/3 shares have been required for restructuring, such as the merger of Nonindicted Company 1 and the sale of important assets, it was only purchased shares in order to secure shares, and there was no purpose of manipulation.

2) Determination

A) In order to establish a crime of violation of Article 188-4(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act, there should be “the purpose of causing another person to make a wrong judgment or wrong judgment as to the trading price,” other than the facts of the pre-sale or pre-sale. This purpose is not to question whether it exists for other purposes or to make a false judgment. The degree of awareness of its purpose is sufficient if there is do not need to be active desire or conclusive recognition, and whether there was an actual misunderstanding of investors or damages to other persons, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 204Do164, Nov. 10, 2005; 201Do3567, Nov. 27, 2001; 2001Do3567, Nov. 27, 2001). In addition, if there is no possibility of a fluctuation in the market price of securities to make a false judgment or to make a false judgment, it means a series of price fluctuations in the market price established by an artificial act of trading in the market.”

B) In full view of the above evidence and the statement of Defendant 1’s written statement as well as the prosecutor’s protocol as to Defendant 2, the following facts are recognized.

Nonindicted Co. 1 was established on January 4, 1973 and listed on the securities market on May 22, 1978. From around April 30, 2007, the number of shares available in the market among Nonindicted Co. 1’s issued shares was 3,491,358 (49%) excluding the 51% acquired by Defendant 4, etc., and the face value was 5,000 won. From around January 31, 2007 to April 30, 2007, Nonindicted Co. 1’s share price was 3,000 won, and from around 30,000 won, the average share price was 0 to April 29, 2007; from around 30,000 won, the average share price of Nonindicted Co. 1’s issued shares was 3,000 won; from around 307, 2007 to April 30, 2007.

Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 3 and 2 to purchase Nonindicted Company 1’s shares using a borrowed account with its affiliates. Defendant 2 opened a borrowed account in the name of Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8, Defendant 3 opened a borrowed account in the name of Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 10, and Defendant 3 traded Nonindicted Company 1’s shares using a total of seven accounts after receiving a borrowed account in the name of Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 10, an affiliated company of the ○○ Group. Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 3 and Defendant 2 to confirm the current status of the stock transaction of Nonindicted Company 1, and to purchase and sell shares within the scope of overall instructions given by Defendant 1.

From April 30, 2007 to June 20, 207, the above Defendants purchased shares of Nonindicted Company 1 through the highest and regular purchase order, high-priced purchase order, market price purchase order, Si/Gun/Gu house purchase order, etc. (stage 1), sold the shares of the borrowed account from June 21, 2007 to July 10, 2007 when the stock price reaches the highest price (stage 2), and purchased shares from July 11, 2007 to August 31, 2007 by the market from July 31, 2007 through the purchase order, highest price purchase order, market price purchase order, and the average subscription rate was 11.87%, and the average subscription rate was 4.43%.

피고인 3, 2는 계열회사인 피고인 4 회사, 피고인 5 회사의 자금을 차명계좌로 입금받아 공소외 1 회사의 주식을 매입하였는데, 피고인 2는 피고인 4 회사의 회사자금을 차명계좌로 옮기면서 하도급업체에 대한 대여금 명목으로 회계처리하였다. 피고인 3, 2는 차명계좌로 매수했던 공소외 1 회사 주식을 일부 매도한 대금을 다시 차명계좌로 입금하여 다시 공소외 1 회사 주식을 샀고, 일부 대금은 피고인 4 회사, 피고인 5 회사로 입금하거나 피고인 1 및 그 가족들의 계좌로 입금하기도 하였다.

C) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, if the Defendants purchased shares in order to secure additional shares at the time of purchase and sale, it is hard to conclude that the Defendants purchased shares at a lower price than that of the company 1 at the time of purchase and sale order. The Defendants and their defense counsel purchased shares in the name of the company 1 at a lower price than that of the company 1 at the time of purchase and sale order, and thus, purchased shares at a lower price than that of the company 1 at a lower price than that of the company 1 at the time of sale and purchase order. However, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants purchased shares at a lower price than that of the company 1 at a lower price than that of the company 1 at the time of sale and purchase order, and that there was no intention to sell shares at a lower price than that of the company 1 at a lower price than that of the company 1 at the time of sale and purchase order. However, it is more reasonable to conclude that the above Defendants and their defense counsel purchased shares at a lower price than that of the company 1 at a lower price.

B. The assertion that the calculation of the amount of profit is unjust

1) The assertion

It is difficult to find out the basis for calculating the average purchase price and the average sale price. Even if it is calculated, the calculation of unrealized profits is contrary to the intent of the precedent that the actual net trade profit should be calculated with the estimated sale price at the time of August 31, 2007.

2) Determination

A) The basis for calculating the amount of profit

On the other hand, the "profit from a violation" under Articles 207-2 and 214 of the former Securities and Exchange Act refers to the profit accrued from the violation in question, i.e., the total amount of the profit accrued from the violation in question, and the difference between the total amount of the profit accrued from the transaction and the total expenses incurred from the transaction. Thus, the profit accrued from the price manipulation due to a conspiracy transaction shall be calculated by deducting the total purchase amount from the total sale amount of the stock transaction related to the price manipulation and deducting the total purchase amount from the total sale amount and deducting the transaction cost (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do675, Apr. 9, 2009) from the total sale amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7192, Apr. 29, 2005).

Therefore, according to the above legal principles, after deducting all the total purchase amount and transaction expenses (fee and tax) from the total sales amount of the stock transaction in relation to the price manipulation, the calculation of the “profit accrued from the price manipulation” by adding up the appraised profits of the stocks of Nonindicted Party 1, which were held at the time of the end of the market price manipulation, would be KRW 4,183,074,512 as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

Note 3) 1,224,050

Note 4) 6,97,790,150

Note 5) 10,496,685

Note 6) 5,725.49

Note 7) 4,442,578,450

Note 8) 19,91,603

Note 9) 7,592.95

Note 10) 582,460 note

Note 11) 1,087,717,561

Note 12) 641,590 shares

Note 13) 10,550 won

Note 14) 3,095,356,951

Note 15) 4,183,074,512

B) Calculation of unrealized profits

On the other hand, the calculation of unrealized profits is calculated by deeming that, in a case where real profit realization was not achieved due to the reasons such as artificially raising the share price through the market price manipulation, and continuously holding the shares, the share price was able to be disposed of at the time when the market price manipulation was completed. According to the evidence No. 9 (Stock Transactions among the defendants), the above defendant made a transaction of the shares of non-indicted 1 after August 31, 2007 through the borrowed name account in the name of the non-indicted 10, non-indicted 2, non-indicted 3, and non-indicted 9, but the trading volume from around September 2007 is not yet higher than that prior to that time, and most of the above defendants did not dispose of the shares and realized profits by disposing of the shares. Thus, it is reasonable to determine the profits at the end of the market price manipulation when the above defendants did not dispose of the shares and did not actually realize profits.

3) Therefore, the above Defendants and defense counsel’ assertion as to the calculation of the amount of profit cannot be accepted.

2. Defendant 3

A. The assertion

The defendant opened a borrowed-name securities account in accordance with the direction of the defendant 1 and sold shares for the accident, and there was no intention to manipulate the market price.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each statement made by the prosecutor's office against the defendant and the suspect examination protocol of the defendant 1, the following circumstances, namely, the defendant 1 ordered the defendant to purchase the shares of the non-indicted 1 with the borrowed account that "it should be managed because the non-indicted 1's share price falls short of its face value," and the defendant, upon the defendant's order, opened four borrowed accounts including the wife, non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 2, and traded the shares of the non-indicted 1, and at the same time, purchased the above borrowed accounts with the non-indicted 4's account at the same time, and purchased the above borrowed shares with the non-indicted 1's account and the non-indicted 2's own shares with the intention of purchasing the shares for the purpose of purchasing the shares of the non-indicted 1's company at the above time. The reason why the defendant purchased the shares of the non-indicted 1's company's company's company's name and the borrowed account managed by the defendant 2 was more likely to purchase the shares of the defendant 1's company.

Unfair conduct, such as price manipulation for stocks, etc., not only causes broad damages to unspecified general investors, but also undermines sound investment awareness, and seriously undermines the fostering and development of the stock market, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish them. The instant market price manipulation in the instant case repeats the orders for market price manipulation by using multiple accounts for a period of four months. The Defendants caused unjust enrichment of KRW 4,183,074,512 due to sudden change in stock price during the pertinent market price manipulation period. In addition, it is not desirable to commit the instant crime in addition to the fact that there was a change in stock ownership in the process, without performing the obligation to report stocks and the obligation to report stocks held in bulk.

However, the Defendants, as the major shareholders of Nonindicted Company 1, as Defendants 4 and 5, appear to have reached a total of 51%, and the remaining general investors’ losses were not much significant. The Defendants, rather than the intent to realize profits through stock disposal, had been engaged in market price manipulation under the intention to own stocks, and the actual profits were less than that of the above unjust profits, considering the overall favorable circumstances with respect to the Defendants, the Defendants were determined by considering the following individual circumstances.

1. Defendant 1

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than 11 years and not more than three months;

【Discretionary sentencing elements】 The fact that there is no criminal record other than four times of fines, and that the company has contributed to the development of industry by faithfully managing the company.

[Determination of Sentence] One year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution

2. Defendants 2 and 3

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than seven years and six months;

[Amount of reasonable sentencing factors] The degree of participation is relatively minor because Defendant 1's orders were conducted, and there is no criminal power, Defendant 3's overall facts charged are recognized and divided.

[Determination of Sentence] One year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution

3. Defendant 4 company

[Scope of Punishment] Fines of 12,559,223,536 et al.

[Compensatory elements of sentencing] The defendant's funds were mobilized for market price manipulation, and it seems that the defendant suffered losses rather than having been fully repaid.

[Determination of Sentence] Fines 20 million won

4. Defendant 5

[Scope of Punishment] Fines not exceeding 12,594,223,536

[Compensatory elements of sentencing] The defendant's funds were mobilized for market price manipulation, and it seems that the defendant suffered losses rather than having been fully repaid.

[Determination of Sentence] Fines 20 million won

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong-tae (Presiding Judge) Relocation Dool Association

(1) Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and their defense counsel asserted that Article 443(2) of the current Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) may increase the punishment of imprisonment provided for in Article 443(1) in cases where the amount of profit is more than 500 million won and may select a fine provided for in Article 207-2(2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act, which only provides for imprisonment, and thus, Article 1(2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act shall be applicable pursuant to Article 1(2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act. However, in light of Article 447 of the former Securities and Exchange Act and Article 214 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, Article 43(2) of the same Act provides that punishment of imprisonment and fine may be imposed concurrently on a person who commits an offense falling under Article 443(2) of the same Act and Article 443(2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act shall not apply to the punishment of imprisonment and fine.

2) Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, and their defense counsel asserted that since the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 215 of the former Securities and Exchange Act on the grounds that Article 215 of the former Securities and Exchange Act goes against the principle of accountability, the aforementioned provision cannot be applied to the judgment of conviction. However, since a corporation acts through an agency, as long as a corporation appoints its representative, the legal effect arising from such act should be attributed to the corporation, and the corporation's own responsibility for criminal acts of the representative of the corporation. The responsibility for the violation of laws and regulations of the corporation is the direct responsibility for the act that can be evaluated as the violation of laws and regulations of the corporation. As for the representative's intentional act, the corporation is liable for the intentional act of the representative, and for the negligent act of the representative (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3876, Sept. 30, 201). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the representative of the corporation's act of Defendant 4 and Defendant 5's employee are directly responsible for the corporation.

Note 3) Quantity 250,630 shares of the borrowed name account managed by Defendant 2 + Quantity 687,920 shares of the borrowed name account managed by Defendant 3 + Quantity 285,50 shares of the purchase of Nonindicted Company 4’s account (Investigation Record No. 93 pages)

Note 4) Nonindicted 7’s account 968,921,200 + Nonindicted 8’s account 209,820,550 + KRW 1,148,645,600 for the account under the name of Nonindicted 10 + KRW 1,508,39,550 for the account under the name of Nonindicted 3 + KRW 1,508,50 for the account under the name of Nonindicted 2 + KRW 384,523,50 for the account under the name of Nonindicted 9 + KRW 1,764,489,40 for the account under the name of Nonindicted 4 (Investigation Records No. 164)

Note 5) 0.15% of 6,997,790,150 Won 0.15

Note 6) (6,97,790,150 + 10,496,685)/1,224,050 shares

Note 7) Nonindicted 7’s account 1,761,983,750 + Nonindicted 8’s account 295,067,000 + KRW 450,179,300 for Nonindicted 10’s account under Nonindicted 3’s name + KRW 1,068,015,000 for Nonindicted 3’s account + KRW 867,33,400 for Nonindicted 2’s account (Investigation Record No. 164)

Note 8) 0.45% of the 4,442,578,450 Won 0.45% of the total amount

Note 9) (4,442,578,450 - 19,91,603)/582,460 shares

Note 10) The lesser quantity between the quantity purchased and the quantity sold

Note 11) Difference ① (1,867.46 Won) ¡¿ Quantity of daily sale (582,460 note) or less, which is charged by the prosecutor.

Note 12) Purchase Quantity (1,224,050 Shares) - Sale Quantity (582,460 Shares)

Note 13) The closing price at the end of the instant market price manipulation ( August 31, 2007)

Note 14) Difference B (4,824.51 Won) x remaining quantity (641,590 note) less than

Note 15) Real Profits (1,087,717,561 Won) + Unrealized Profits (3,095,356,951 Won)