All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the non-guilty error and misunderstanding of legal principles), the first instance court which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, and the second instance court which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, even if the Defendant did not acquire any actual benefits such as receiving the payment from W, as it does not constitute the elements of the facts charged in this case, so long as the Defendant did an unfair trading using the account of V, the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, the first instance court erred in misunderstanding of legal principles, although it is contrary to the rule of experience to deem that the Defendant used the instant unfair trading in the instant case with his account, W, who is the husband, was easy to commit the crime by providing the above account to the Defendant, and that he received a certain amount of compensation from W.

B. (1) In determining the facts, the Defendant did not use the unlawful means, scheme, or trick in the instant broadcast or share transaction, or used the deceptive scheme for the purpose of changing the market price of stocks.

In other words, the Defendant broadcast according to objective data, such as press reports and published data, financial statements, business reports, and reports of securities companies, not the falsity, exaggeration, and vague trend, and the prospects based on the investment techniques of Defendant Naman.

Even if some of the items of the defendant's stock transactions correspond to the broadcast recommending items and appear to be the pre-broadcasting prior to the broadcast, this is only a part of the extension of stock transactions which had been previously personally used to maintain the stock transaction of the cross-listed pattern, and there are many cases where the defendant suffered losses from the purchase or transaction after the broadcast, and it is not dependent on or intended to depend on the influence of the broadcast, and the pre-sale itself is socially accepted.