[1] Whether pre-trial detention days can be included in the period of detention in the workhouse in a case where a judgment is rendered concurrently with imprisonment with prison labor for which the execution is suspended, and a fine is imposed (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in the crime of violation of the Securities and Exchange Act through the manipulation of market price manipulation, the crime of price manipulation committed by the defendant in collusion with other accomplices for a certain period of time in an organized form does not constitute a single comprehensive crime

[1] In the event that a judgment is rendered concurrently with imprisonment with prison labor for which the execution is suspended, imprisonment with prison labor is suspended, and a fine is executed as it is, so the number of days of detention in the workhouse can be included in the period of detention in the workhouse in favor of the defendant.

[2] The case holding that in the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act through the manipulation of market price manipulation, the defendant committed the manipulation of multiple items of stocks in collusion with other accomplices for a certain organized form, but the defendant did not participate in part of the manipulation of market price for each item, unlike other accomplices, and the price manipulation period for each item does not overlap, and each manipulation does not constitute a blanket crime on the grounds that there exists a certain interval between the manipulation of market price manipulation and each other

[1] Articles 57 and 70 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 188-4 and 207-2 (1) 2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004)

Defendant

Park Jong-il

Attorney above,

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and a fine of KRW 800 million.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 800,000 into one day.

The 59 days of detention before the sentence of this judgment shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

except that the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

On July 15, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul High Court to a suspended sentence of 2 years and a fine of 50 million won for a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act at one year and six months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the 23th day of the same month. From around 1990 to around 200, the Defendant was an individual investor who has traded mass stocks by means of being entrusted with a securities account from the branch in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1. From November 2002 to January 24, 2003, the Defendant was prepared to prepare for online stock trading with 10 computers and Internet lines on the 4th floor of each building located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and from around the 27th day of the same month to the 20th day of the same month, he was equipped with online stock trading facilities at the same place as an office office located in Seodongdong-dong, Seoul with the same method in the 21st day of the 20th day of the same month, Defendant 20.3 p.

1.For the purpose of inducing the sale and purchase transaction of earth and sand:

A. On December 2, 2002, 11:14:15 Seoul Seocho-gu office located in Yang Jae-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to purchase 1:43 times in total from November 28, 2002 to March 31, 2003, 5:856, 215 shares in comparison with the immediately preceding and subsequent purchase orders by taking advantage of the account in the name of the defendant in the future deposit securities under the status of 3,380 shares purchase price of 40 won in the immediately preceding transaction price of 3,420 won in comparison with the other party, and 1,400 shares in comparison with 1,40 shares in attached Table 2.

B. From 10:55:10 to 11:07 on December 9, 2002, 33,657 shares from 4:5:00 to 11:00,07, via an account in the name of Non-Indicted 2 of Samsung Securities (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Indicted 2”) and issued an order to purchase 3,657 shares over four occasions at the immediately preceding and the counter-party price of KRW 60 to KRW 10,00,000 for the share price of KRW 4,660 on 4,590 to KRW 4,660 on the same day, and the share price of KRW 11:0:53 to 11:034 on the same day, 30,220 shares were sold at KRW 4,650 and then the purchase order was revoked, and 36:35,205 on November 28, 2002.”

C. Between January 14, 2003: 08:29:38 to 08:5:49 on January 14, 2003, the number of concurrent houses for the beginning decision shall be 260,340 shares (60.95% of the total number of purchase orders at the time) in three accounts, such as the defendant's name of the defendant of future deposit securities, etc. over 19 times, and the purchase price shall be determined from 08:40 to 08:59:52 on the same day after inducing the purchase transaction by misunderstanding that the purchase price will flow into large traffic, and then the purchase price shall be revoked from 204,30 shares from 204, to 300 shares from 30 until 31, 203; and the concurrent order shall be revoked from 204, 300 shares from 20 to 304, 204, 2574, 297, 207.

transaction of shares shall be conducted in such a manner as to mislead or to cause a change in the market price, as the sale and purchase transaction of such shares may take place;

2.For the purpose of creating a misleading appearance of active trading or causing another person to make a false judgment with respect to the trading of earth and sand;

A. On December 27, 2002, 11:46:58 through 11:49:50 of the closing price of 4,620 won prior to the end price of 4,390 won, and the immediately preceding 116,721 share over four occasions through an account opened in the name of the defendant of the defendant of the future set forth in the name of the defendant of the branch in the future of 11:40 won, and the immediately preceding 1:50:48 through 11:53:06 of the same account to purchase the 160,000 share over three times at the highest price of 80 won immediately preceding the end price of 101,09,095 share trade contract between 101,09 and 4,500 won and the share price increase up to 4,50 won, and the sale and purchase contract between 200 and the last 31:5031, 200."

B. On February 6, 2003, between 11:47:50 to 12:04:58, the price of 274,845 shares over three occasions using three accounts, such as the account in the name of the defendant of future set-back securities, etc. in the status of 6,160 :361,653 shares over 11 times by using two accounts, such as the paper-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-

A total of KRW 1,199,171,443 was acquired through the market price manipulation stock transaction as above.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 3

1. Detailed statement of the account subject to investigation, detailed statement of acquisition and disposal of stocks, detailed statement of the defendant's order of manipulation, detailed statement of unjust enrichment calculation by the defendant, detailed statement of the conclusion of orders by day of the defendant, and

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

inclusive, Articles 207-2(2)2 and (1)2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004), 188-4(1)1, 2, 3, and (2)1 of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004), and 214 (Concurrent Imposition of Fines)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 and 55(1)6)

1. Mitigation of latter concurrent crimes;

Article 39(1) latter part of Article 39(1) and Article 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act ( considered equity in cases where a judgment is rendered simultaneously with a crime for which a judgment becomes final and conclusive)

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as "voluntary mitigation")

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Since imprisonment is suspended and its execution is executed as it is, the number of days of detention in the prison shall be included in the period of detention in the prison for a fine more favorable to the defendant.

The defense counsel asserts that the crime of this case committed against the defendant in a partial final judgment and the crime of this case committed by the same law as the same accomplice during the adjacent period with a single criminal intent. The protected legal interest also is the same as the social legal interest of securing the fairness and smooth circulation of securities transaction in the securities market or the Association brokerage market, and thus, the prosecution of this case constitutes the case at the time of final judgment, and thus, the judgment of acquittal of the defendant should be pronounced in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, according to the above conviction evidence and the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation against Non-Indicted 4, 5, and 1, even though the defendant organized a team with Non-Indicted 4, Non-Indicted 5, and Non-Indicted 1, etc. and leased office, the defendant did not participate in the manipulation of market price for the development of Samho, which is different from other accomplices after the price manipulation for the above final judgment, again caused the price manipulation again. The period of market price manipulation for each of the above items from July 5, 2002 to August 22 of the same year, 10: from around September 9, 200 to November 4 of the same year, 200, the defendant's defendant continued to appear to have violated the Securities and Exchange Act for a specific period of not less than 5 months, and the defendant's assertion that the above category of items were concurrent with the defendant's defense counsel from around 28, 201 to March 31, 2003.

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)